User talk:Pascal.Tesson/Archive 13

thanks
I didn't realize the turnaround time on editing articles was so quick. I had thought that when I clairified the copyright issue that a little time would have been afforded me to edit the article so that is met the standards that you seek. Obviously I was wrong. I guess if Pignose wants the information on here, they can do it themselves. I don't have the time to figure out how to edit articles if the article I posted will be deleted because I am not fast enough.

Lefebvres 07:50, 9 August 2007 (UTC)lefebvres

About La Transfiguration de Notre-Seigneur Jesus-Christ article
What do you mean of what you have written in the "EDIT SUMMARY" section? I just want everything to be clear so that I can improve the article. Thanks.(Addaick 15:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC))

Keep up good work
Thanks very much to your comment about the TRANSFIGURATION and remove my article from the speedy deletion. I will do my best to edit articles. Again many thanks!(Addaick 01:52, 2 August 2007 (UTC))

Elonka
That was not uncivil. I'm reverting my comments. I feel this is something people must see. They must see why people are calling her manipulative. The diff Jeho pointed out showed that exactly. Please dont remove comments like that. Infact, please respond to it. Tell me that telling others to "try to have 5 edits for each dispute-involved edit" is not advising them to be manipulative. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 02:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I also don't find it uncivil. Unfortunately, an RfA often has us considering things that aren't always positive, but that does not make the message itself uncivil. What I find uncivil is disagreeing with me on this minor thing, and going to support an RfC on unrelated matters. I honestly am confused at why you felt strongly enough to remove it, and honestly don't see what was so rude. I do not endorse incivility. -- Ned Scott 03:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

More edit
I have just edited in La Transfiguration de Notre-Seigneur Jesus-Christ article. Please read about it. Many thanks if you can give me some comments.(Addaick 11:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC))

RE:RFA
I did report it. It was quickly dismissed and solved. Thank you for your words. I hope to continue serving the community, regardless of the incident. -- Boricua  e  ddie  16:55, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: Undeletion
No, go right ahead. -- John Reaves 23:59, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

RE: Russavia
I have inserted the relevant diff behind that comment (which was in inverted commas for a reason, btw). Let's allow the general audience to check out the diff and decide for themselves. I am not alleging some kind of collusion conspiracy here, but your comment has clearly embolded him to wreak havok across all kinds of hotel articles, irrespective of their level of notability and verificability.--Huaiwei 01:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * Interesting, but I don't think you have anything to worry about. :) You're welcome for the Barnstar. :) Acalamari 17:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:RFA
I hope you understand that my comments don't protest the outcome of Elonka's candidacy. I accept the community's decision there and agree that the bureaucrats closed it correctly. I'd also like to brainstorm on ways to foster successful candidacies among more seasoned editors. I've supported high school students for administratorship, and proudly so. Yet something's not right when notable professionals have a harder time getting sysopped. Let's see what we can do to level the field. Durova Charge! 20:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Responded to your comments at my talk page. It's tough when these situations develop and, as an involved party, my comments might appear to be talking about particular outcomes rather than general ones.  Cheers and thanks,  Durova Charge! 21:26, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

The Scientific Superstar
Aw, Pascal, how could you delete that? It was, and I quote:


 * based on a band called "Spi hunter" that was a real band [and that] never played a live show but had limited sucsess in the word of mouth area

Ummy-yummy! How many articles are that compelling? -- Hoary 04:25, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

John Paul II Minor Seminary
Hi, I see you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Paul II Minor Seminary as a delete stating that "Concerns about notability and referencing have not been adressed (sic)". I believe that notability (it's the newly opened minor seminary for the diocese) was addressed and that lack of better references (it's a brand new school in a non-English speaking country) alone is not a sufficient reason for overruling consensus (or overruling no consensus, in this case). Clearly there was no consensus to delete.

This isn't much of an article, admittedly, and its loss certainly won't scar Wikipedia, but I am concerned with the idea that a closing administrator can impose his own concept of notability in an AfD and override consensus. While AfD is a discussion, not a vote, one cannot possibly find a consensus to delete within this particular discussion.

I just wanted to give you the "heads-up" that I plan to ask for a deletion review sometime in the next day or so, but it's very late now and I wanted to give you an opportunity to review the closing first. -- DS1953 talk 06:41, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

List of hotels in Singapore
Don't worry. This is my fourth "controversial deletion" thus far, so I have at least some experience in handling these issues. I am wondering if my "Singapore-centrism" comment on the AfD was proper, though... — Kurykh  02:55, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmmm... yes perhaps that choice of words was asking for trouble! Still, you also correctly pointed out the shaky "I like it" and "Useful" comments. I had first proded the article so I was surprised to see what seemed to be like an entirely non-controversial AfD turn into this mud-slinging affair. When I tried to make sense of it, I reviewed Russavia's contribs, and found the fighting words on the noticeboard which I think go a long way in explaining the acrimony of the AfD. Pascal.Tesson 03:10, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

The article was userfied by Huaiwei. I thought this deletion was going to be more exciting...but oh well. — Kurykh  03:39, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, what a letdown! Although you should be grateful you avoided a DRV with Kappa on your back! Cheers, Pascal.Tesson 03:42, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I was a tad late in responding to your earlier requests to delink yourself from Russavia, but I think it has to be reiterated that at no point in time do I consider you to be in any kind of "alliance" with him over Singapore-related issues. I do note your level-headed comments in some of his other AFDs on Singapore-related articles, and your comment related to List of banks in Singapore, and I do agree that some Singapore-related articles are worthy for speedy deletion. I chose not to remove that point in Articles for deletion/List of hotels in Singapore, because I believe that my observations of Russavia's reactions to your comments remain valid, irrespective of your views on past desputes. There is nothing more to suggest any further involvement on your part, particularly when the provision of diffs would allow any user to assess the situation for themselves. Anyway, I am far more "peace-loving" than my edit history may suggest. A nomination at WP:DRV is only neccesary where the issue cannot be resolved with the administrator. The outcome has been satisfactory, and I see no need to aggravate the situation any further.--Huaiwei 04:02, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Requests for adminship/Elonka 2
Thanks very much for the kind words, and yes, I'll be trying again soon. :) I actually find the outcome of my RfA somewhat amusing, considering that a few hours after it closed, I was moving on with real-life, at the North American Sci-Fi Convention this weekend, giving talks and signing autographs. My lecture on the Knights Templar went really well! Internet access is a bit spotty here, and it makes Wikipedia seem very far away, but don't worry, I'll be back home again soon, and back to my normal schedule. Thanks again for the support, --Elonka 03:18, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Film AFD
Can you offer more information on your closure of Articles for deletion/List of films featuring the French Foreign Legion as no consensus? It looks like a delete to me. Otto4711 18:53, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Requests for adminship/Brian New Zealand 2
I find the opposition there puzzling and troubling. if this guy's not a good enough candidate, I don't know who is. I'd thought of standing for admin in the next week or two myself and Brian is certainly better qualified than I am.

Thanks for sticking up for him. -- A. B. (talk) 23:40, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

High School Musical 2
Please do not remove speedy deletion notices from articles before it has been discussed, as you did with List of High School Musical 2: The Series Episode. Please use the template on the page instead if you disagree with the deletion.

In reguards to the speedy deletion notice: High School Musical 2 is a movie, NOT a television series. --Pilotboi / talk / contribs 17:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

CV question
Love it. Deiz talk 11:25, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Great Chicken Wing Hunt
Spam page that you deleted keeps getting recreated RedBirdI55 18:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Talk not deleted
When you deleted a page I was in the process of commenting on the talk page (I was giving reasons for why it should be deleted.) Thus, now we have a non-existent article with an existent talk page. See it here: Talk:Super Will Vandom. Sorry about that, I thought I should let you know. Have a great day, Brusegadi 23:37, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Prod of The Principle of Conjugated Subsystems‎
Hi there, I've outlined my reasons for proposing this for deletion on the discussion page. Do you think it would have been better to put it up for AfD immediately? I've got little experience of the processes for deleting articles! Tim Vickers 05:25, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks! :) Tim Vickers 15:36, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

RE: Image talk:Franka Potente RLR.jpg
No one else commented or anything. Why was the result "Delete"? -Indolences 07:18, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Copyvios by user:Mike Nepstad
Hi. You reverted copyvio tags by myself and another guy on several copypaste articles contributed by Mike Nepstad, on the basis that the text is public domain.

I think you're mistaken. I have a background in IP rights and I'm certain that this material can't be assumed to be public domain. True, it comes from a federal agency so it ought to be, but the website explictly states "Not all the information on our site is in the public domain" and does not state that this refers only to images. Therefore some text might not be public domain.

It's an annoyingly ambiguous statement but it has to be construed in the most negative fashion. For example some material may have been taken with permission from elsewhere, and the copyright owners may not have given blanket permission for its onward copying. Not only don't we know that for certain, but in fact since the copyright notice on the website alerts us to the fact that some material isn't government copyright we have to assume the worst.

Where copyright is unclear it's the responsibility of the author to clarify it. In this case an assertion of permission is essential.

I've restored the speedy tags. If you're not happy with that we could discuss it in an AfD debate. (Or perhaps the author could do a rather better job than just grabbing text off someone else's website!)

andy 13:49, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I explicitly declined to delete this
, saying: "The information not in the public domain on these sites is specified. Al US PD sites carry this legend, and all are used.USFWS pages are widely used throughout WP . It is to be construed by common sense. Your proposed rule would require the deletion of all US PD derived material. Please discuss on WP:Copyright.

Anyway, this is not speedy--read WP:CSD--speedy for copyvio is for unquestionable copyvios, where no assertion of permission is given is given, and this is 1/ not unquestionable. 2/ permission is asserted. In cases which do not meet "unquestionable" it must be discussed.,"

(we will obviously have a discussion coming---do you want to start?) DGG (talk) 01:02, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Sex ratio in harems
Hi, Pascal. Concerning your deletion (→Sex ratio in harems - appears to be a very fringe theory based on anecdotal evidence)

Here is all the information that I have (published of course with all the references):

Humans are not strongly monogamous, therefore different secondary sex ratio (SR) deviations from 1:1 may arise. For Nigerians Thomas (1913) has reported secondary SR values in relation to wives number (table 1). It may be concluded that there exists reverse relation between secondary and tertiary SR.

Furthermore, if a negative feedback exists, an increase of the secondary SR can be observed in harems. Table 1 shows data on three harems: Chu Juanchshan (U Han, 1980) (1328-1398, China), Ramses II (Ebers, 1965) (1317-1251 B. C., Egypt), and Mauli Ismail (Aisha & Afrika today, 1970) (1646-1727, Morocco). These data are not easy to account for by purely stochastic sex determination. The probability of random deviation from 1:1 under such boy excess is 10-15. The number of mothers and progeny makes the effect statistically significant; the number of fathers is very small.

U Han, 1980. Zizneopisanie Chu Juanchana. (Life of Chu Juanchan) Nauka (Science), Moscow, p. 227 (in Russian, translated from Chinese).

Ebers, G., 1965. Warda. Nauka (Science), Moscow p. 476 (in Russian).

Aisha and Afrika today. 1970. N 5: 53-54 (in Russian).

Thomas, C., 1913. Report on the Ibo-speaking peoples of Nigeria Pt. 1, London.

Number of Wifes / IIISR / IISR: 1 / 50 / 49; 2 / 33.3 / 51;  3 / 25 / 52;  4 / 20 / 55;  5 / 16.7 / 57 wife  [Thomas,1913]

Harems (Reference) / IIISR / II SR:

Chu Juanchan (U Han,1980) / ---a) / 62.0+7.5

Ramses II (Ebers,1965) / 1.35 (74) / 62.0+3.6

Mauli Ismail (Aisha,1970) / ---a) / 61.8+1.6

a)the numerical values not cited; c)wives number are in parenthesis. By the sign criterion negative feedback effect is valuable (P=0.01).

For Mauli Ismail it’s sort of anecdotal, but true. Here is the story: He had so many children that it was hard to count them, so he put two jars close to his harem and when a boy was born he put small sword in one jar, for a girl he put a mirror. After all swords and mirrors were counted it was 548:340.Sashag 01:43, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Pascal

What if we forget about the theories and hypotheses and start with the facts about sex ratio. For example, please look at the review http://www.geodakian.com/Articles/Articles%20in%20English/Translated%20from%20Russian/1985%20Feedback%20Eng%20transl.doc there are 4 tables that contain organized to illustrate a relationship (which is in the title):

Table 1 Plants, animals and humans secondary SR  (II SR) in relation to tertiary SR

Table 2 Dioecious plants secondary sex ratio (II SR) dependence on the amount of pollen

Table 3 Secondary SR dependence from the intensity of sexual activity (ISA) of males

Table 4 Secondary SR (II SR) dependence from the delayed fertilization of eggs

Each of these relationships can be a small section in the Sex Ratio article. You don't have to mention the interpretation and we can remove harems if you wish (however the data is a data). The Wiki article will look more complete and will provide structure for people to add more data.

P.S. I made 2 new pages: notability and main events. http://www.geodakian.com/en/04_Notability_Citations_en.htm http://www.geodakian.com/en/07_Chronology_&_Milestones_en.htm Let me know what you thinkSashag 17:29, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Normanton Business and Enterprise College
Actualy the report isn't Copyrighted and neither is the image. It's in the Govermants "free" folder (as in theres no need 2 copyright). OV
 * note: this also reveales on why everyone keeps deleting that image. OV
 * Fair enough--OV

Thank you for unblock
Just thought I'd thank you for unblocking me on this IP. The anonymous user attached to it has been highly disrespectful of content on Wikipedia, and I don't blame the admin who instituted the IP ban. Kewlio 19:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Answered Your WP:ANI Post
Hey Pascal, I answered your WP:ANI post here. Just wanted to let you know.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 20:00, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:McAndrews-Held-Malloy-Logo.gif
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:McAndrews-Held-Malloy-Logo.gif. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 21:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi!
Hey Pascal, thanks for the message! I would have stayed logged in but Wikipedia looks really different in the white layout so I was editing without logging in. Can you remove your message from the user talk page? Right now, probably everyone from this IP is seeing it. 38.115.129.43 18:39, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. I did not know there was a different layout when you don't log in but I'm sure you can fix that by choosing an appropriate skin. Pascal.Tesson 18:43, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Cool! I switched from "Cologne Blue" to "Classic" It still looks different than the standard page but is a lot closer to it. Thanks for all your help with the page and for removing the speedy deletion tag. Hope the Orange banner ("New Message") disappears soon. Athar Khan 18:47, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Quick Update: MonoBook looks identical to the regular Wikipedia Page. Now, I can do all my edits while logged in. Thanks again!

Athar A. Khan 20:29, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Dahn/Sandbox
Hi. You recently deleted User:Dahn/Sandbox, without bothering to ask me about it. The request was most likely made by an IP - not my IP, and most likely an IP used by the banned User:Bonaparte (who was vandalizing my user page just as this was occurring). I find this unacceptable, and I demand that it and its content be recovered asap. I find it unbelievable that such a request was even taken into account. Dahn 10:32, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * He is using another IP to delete this message over and over again. Dahn 10:38, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey, there. My assumption here, if I'm not mistaken, is that you mistook this for a legitimate db-userreq speedy request. The edit was made by, who I've recently blocked following some disruptive edits (including sockpuppetry). If there was another reason for this deletion, my apologies for the intrusion, and please let me know at your earliest convenience. Thanks. – Luna Santin  (talk) 10:55, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Apology accepted. I'm sorry myself for the reaction I had, which must have seemed rather rude - I was unsettled by the discovery, and I did now if the content was necessarily retrievable. Such mistakes are bound to happen once in a while (especially since I'm now sure you were focusing on much more important issues). I've protected the page from IP editors, so it's currently secured - in retrospect, I guess I should have expected that vandal to try his hand at this. Dahn 17:37, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the love!
Diplomacy's a dying art form in our eyes. It's nice to see someone else who practices it! Sidatio 15:32, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Budtard
Your call, though I'd nearly guarantee this person is related to and a sockfarm  being perpetrated by a bunch of school kids that has required numerous oversighted edits containing personal information for minors... The unblock may become a moot point once all the IPs behind this are rangeblocked.--Isotope23 talk 17:54, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Deleted image talk pages
''Hi Calton. Just to let you know that many image talk pages cannot be speedied because they contain a discussion of their deletion.''

And those are marked as such, and I don't tag those -- not that I really see the point, but again, those are clearly marked. Everything else? No point in keeping them. --Calton | Talk 02:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of which, regarding Image talk:Astrotrainart.jpg: you'd best go undelete the couple of dozen identical and equally pointless image talk pages in this particular series, or at least have the courtesy to mark them as actually worth archiving so I don't waste any further time. --Calton | Talk 02:51, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

In any case, these errant talk pages are not posing any problem and it's unclear to me why you would choose to spend much time hunting them down

Because they're a waste of server space, they're attached to non-existent pages, the "discussions" almost always shed no light whatsoever, because any "discussion" is almost always meaningless since the image in question can't be seen -- and given that image titles aren't unique, could be in reference to anything at all -- and the notion of hanging onto them because maybe someone someday might could make some kind of objection at DRV, possibly, is pretty silly. It's unclear to me why someone would choose to spend time reversing these in the face of all that. --Calton | Talk 03:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Lyrics
Still trying to figure out what is and isn't okay with lyrics. Are absolutely NO lyrics acceptable from ANY song, including those of uncertain origin such as: The Song That Never Ends? -WarthogDemon 04:09, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: Blankets
Thanks for the note. I compiled the image from multiple sources and put them together myself. I'll see if I can reconstruct where each individual cover came from. --Fritz S. (Talk) 08:50, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I added the info the way I thought would make most sense now, but feel to change it if you like. --Fritz S. (Talk) 09:20, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

unblock
Hello! I was working on our university's infomation(Keimyung University) which was out-dated in here. Unfortunately I didn't know the licese thing about images. As result, my work were deleted by you. Would you please recover it ASAP? It's took me about 4 hours to up-date it. If the images are mattered, I'll delete the images. If you let me know how to get my license, it would be great help! and I will upload as your advice. is it possilbe if I upload the images which doesn't have copy rights? I'm very frustrated coz I don't know how to prove my authorization to you!

contents
Hello? My unblock has expired. If you have any reason for deleting it, please let me know. Otherwise, could you please recover the contents about keimyung University which I updated? The information about Keimyung University is too out-dated and also has not much information. It will possibly give a wrong information. So we need to update it. I refered many other universities' page in Wikipedia before I updated, and I found they also atteched images which has no licenses. If you delete the contents because the images I used has copyright on it, I replace it to images without copyright.

If the images still violated your policy, I won't use those and I'll use only text.

Please recover the contents ASAP. Thank you!

Hi,

Very Recently I decided to update the information on Calypsonians in Barbados, however at the time I realised that the information I had was missing some bits to it, so I just started the biography on him (Anderson Armstrong) with intention to return with complete info. If you'd please repost the information in which I had there before.

Notification of proposal: Guideline/policy governing lists
Given your participation in recent AfDs involving lists (most notably Articles for deletion/List of Iranian women, and given your track record for neutrality and diplomacy, I'd appreciate your input on the following:

Village pump (policy)

Thank you in advance for any thoughts you may have on the topic. Sidatio 16:15, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

CheckUser
Can you start a CheckUser against me? I really want to prove I'm not a sock. --Brickoceanmonth 19:02, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Copyright / Conflict Of Interest
Hi, you and other people have recently told me that edits I was making to certain pages were both against copyright and conflict of interest regulations. I have a letter from the content holders (Quantel) giving us (the IABM) permission to use their content on wikipedia. It also addresses the conflict of interest issue, as both websites that will be linked to on each page are non-commercial, free of charge, and provide useful definitions of technology terms relating to the broadcast & media technology sector, which may be of value to a researcher. How do we let wikipedia see this letter, either by forwarding or scanning the letter? And if this answers the issues that have been raised by you and two other people, will it prevent people continuing to delete my edits? Thanks again, Cindy141 16.31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

re:
Ahh!! :-p Yeah, it transluted onto another page. Could you restore User:Wikihermit/userpage? ~  Wi ki her mit  23:13, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Academic citations for Fun Home
Hi, Pascal. I spent a few hours in the Yale library this afternoon, and despite having to wrestle with an uncooperative computer system I was able to find a few more academic citations for Fun Home. Specifically, I found a review in Gay & Lesbian Review Worldwide, and an essay in PMLA which began with a page quoted from Fun Home and discussed the book for two pages later in the essay. I can and probably will go back there when I get the opportunity, to search for more academic sources, but I was wondering if you could take a look at the changes since your comment on the FAC and let me know if I'm heading in the right direction. How much more do you think the article needs before it fulfills the "comprehensiveness" criterion? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:48, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the support, Pascal! One small thing:  has requested that you strike your previous "weak object" at Featured article candidates/Fun Home, for procedural reasons.  Again, thanks! —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:50, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks again! —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:47, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Aw, shucks. Your support was a big help too!

Incidentally, I've been a bit uncertain about how to handle the article review by Awadewit, which I requested at the suggestion of BillDeanCarter. Addressing most of her suggestions would involve major rewriting, and I'm not sure that I should attempt that during the FAC process. What do you think? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

w3player
Hi, I noticed that you deleted the w3player article. There was some very useful information in that article that saved me, and doubtlessly saved others a lot of anguish. I'd like to recreate it within the bounds of acceptability. Please let me know what was wrong with the original so I can do this. Cheers. Tkenna 02:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup templates
Just to let you know that most cleanup templates, like "unreferenced", "fact", "cleanup"etc., are best not "subst"ed. See WP:SUBST for more details. Regards,
 * Did I do that? Sorry if I did, I know full well they should not be but I do make mistakes. Pascal.Tesson 17:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

AfD for 28 Slices Later (Short Film)
Hi,

Thanks for clearing up the mess that I managed to create! I originally nominated the AfD using TW, but somehow the tag didn't get added to the article.

Oli Filth 19:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Deletion from admin policy page
Hi Pascal, I hope you don't mind my leaving a message here.

Earlier today I was looking at some deletion policy pages, including Deletion guidelines for administrators. A user who was not an admin had deleted one of the policy points out of hand, with the edit summary rationale of "this should absolutely not be policy." No consensus, no nothing--he just deleted the part of the policy he didn't like. 

I've had a brief conflict with this particular user before, when he deleted cited, sourced and well described information from an article I work on with the edit summary "unsourced, not even in text." I can deal with reverting disruptive edits in articles, but it sort of disturbs me that this editor would now go so far as to try to change guidelines for administrators to suit his wishes.

I could be overreacting, I could be irritated over nothing, but as I said, the fact that he's now trying to change policy pages on a WP:IDONTLIKEIT basis really bothers me. I really don't feel I'm qualified to judge so I thought I'd run it by an admin. I chose you to bring this to because I notice you've dealt with this user before. Thanks for your help, best, DanielEng 04:00, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for responding so quickly. I was reluctant to leave a message for Squeakbox for the same reason as you: based on my past dealing with him, I figured he'd ignore anything I said. I was just seeking some input from an admin to see if there was anything that needed to be done about it other than rv and moving on (is disrupting a policy page different from disrupting a regular page, or is he getting out of control?). For now I'll just keep watching the page. Thanks again, DanielEng 04:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I understand completely; talks on Wiki can get really nasty and I wouldn't want to start a battle or pull anyone else into one. I will leave him a message so there's a (cyber) paper trail, and leave it at that. He does seem like a user who has been around Wiki long enough to know better. Thanks, DanielEng 04:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Image Speedy Deletion
OK what kind of deletion should they be up for then? El- Nin 09  07:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Civility in Question on my Talk Page
Hello, Pascal.Tesson.

I am requesting an administrator help me with an issue that arose earlier where on my talk page someone had composed an offensive message that is possibly a breech of Civility on Wikipedia.

I saw a new messages alert. When I went to check my talkpage someone had written me (it was an I.P. that signed the message). I wrote about tennis and this I.P. claimed that I was writing false information about Rafael Nadal, and that he cannot beat Roger Federer, when Nadal has a greater record over Federer (This link supports that Nadal has a greater career record than Federer). Below is the exact message this I.P. sent to me (it is in wikicode but also indented to format properly):

== Stop removing factual information == Stop removing factual information. Rafael Nadal has been ass fucked by federer. He told me so himself. So stick ur dick up ur dads ass u wanka. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)

I know that Wikipedia's Policy on Civility suggests to contact the user, but given the nature of the message, I think that you that as an administrator should be alerted.

 -Tennisuser123 17:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC) 


 * Thanks much. I will be sure to report back to you if this happens again.  -Tennisuser123 18:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC) 

this Hitler mess
you wrote: Please stop participating in all the nonsense about Hitler, the Renfrew Jews and the Renfrew museum. This is the only warning you will receive. If you continue abusing your editing privileges, you will be blocked from editing. Pascal.Tesson 05:43, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

In my defense... There is some truth to this urban myth about Hitler in Renfrew. However at this time I cannot find any concrete evidence. It is my belief that there is some cover up going on. I think Hitler was a horrible person and caused much grief.

However I was just trying to shed some light on this issue and not trying to glamorize Hitler. Renfrewash 17:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion of MeetingUniverse.com
I understand if you want us to change the language of our post but we only explained what we have created. In no way did we advertise our product. Merely explained it. I can understand if there were other tools like this but we have proprietary tools that need to be explained. I also feel that our post was much less of an ad when compared to the AAA article. They offer benefits, affiliates, multiple links among other more blatant "ad" material. Also, our listing was deleted within 5 minutes without an opportunity to explain ourselves. Please inform us as to how we may comply with the open source rules of Wikipedia.

Go5star 23:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your prompt response
I appreciate the prompt fashion in which you responded to my post. The article I was speaking of was the one for the AAA business. Also known as Automobile Association of America (not a direct competitor of our business model). I can understand more, after your explanation, why they are allowed to post what they have posted. Most likely due to the fact that it might have come from a 3rd party but I still feel that they were more blatantly advertising than I. I will review the reposted MeetingUniverse.com article to see how I can improve the writing as well as review other current articles to gain a broader insight as to appropriate writting. Please inspect Meeting Professionals International article as well. I feel we were in line with that post and would appreciate an explination. Thank you for your time and assistance. Go5star 17:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Edited MeetingUniverse.com Article
I have reviewed your rewrite of what I wrote. It works for us but I do have to say that we do not have any "reliable" sources from which to gain credibility. We will have that shortly but until then the only content we could provide would be from us. As for the citation needed after the sentence that reads "the only hotel rating system to rate hotels according to meeting planner criteria" we do not have one as there are no published sources due to the fact that we honestly are the only company doing what we are doing. The citation will come but when we are not sure. Could we change the sentence to read something along the lines of "unlike their indirect competitors who rate hotels according to individual traveler experience, MeetingUniverse.com rates hotels according to meeting planner criteria"? Again, thank you for your help. Go5star 18:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Why??
Why did you delete my Episode page for an episode of Trailer Park boys? Other shows have individual episode pages why not trailer park boys, especially considering it is the last episode. I put allot of effort into that page and when I check it is deleted?? And you never even took my ploy synopsis and put it back into the episode list?? Do you not like me or the show? Some answers please? Renfrewash 19:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

ViperGirl2000
Thanks for taking care of this vandalism-only account.-Krenath 20:15, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Feedback for MeetingUniverse.com
Again, thank you for your feedback and review of the suggested articles. I appreciate the thorough manner in which you conduct your editing. I dont know if you noticed but the American Automobile Association article cites their own newsroom. There is only 1 independant source of citation out of 10. I would also like to draw your attention to the "Hotel Rating" article. In this article, differing rating systems between countries are compared. The main fact that I would like to draw attention to is that there needs to be a comparison of rating services of hotels for individual travelers and corporate event groups. These groups stress hotels in very different ways and until now there has not been a way to compare them. This is a completely new practice and thus has no references. My last question is if MPI and AAA are allowed to stay posted then could we not post what you have rewritten for us as our article? I see them as similar examples of legitimate posts. If they are to stay I feel that we should be allowed to post what you have written. Please let me know. Thank you. Go5star 23:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Civility in Question Again
Hello, Pascal.Tesson,

A few mesages ago on this page, a problem arose (see Civility in Question on my Talk Page message on your talk page (or if you archive a lot, in your archive) for more info). If you look at my contribs and diffs, I did not do this, but somehow, instead some inapropriate message about George Bush sucking cock was displayed instead of Template:Flagicon. I don't know, but in these few days, I have received various comments--I wonder if it is nothing and someone just vandalizing the Country Data Russia template. It came up instead of the Russian flag, but still, can you check this situation in depth and possibly warn this I.P. to stop writing offensive comments if it appears anything serious? Thanks.

 -Tennisuser123 01:06, 23 August 2007 (UTC) 


 * Hi, Pascale.Tesson.
 * It was clearly vandalism reguardless of what happened. I know it was unclear what I wrote above, so I will be sure to rewrite it. I don't know if you're aware of the template flagicon, because if you are, this template works as so:




 * This field of the 3-letter abbreviation of country is a redirect. The template flagicon does as so... the field that you enter is entered as and  links to another template--Country data 3 LETTER ABBREVIATION. It will display the flag, if I am correct. Where this George Bush sucking cock came up was where the Russian flag should have been-if you look at the article, it has been restored, but where the Russian flag is was always where the innapropriate comments were. To get a better feeling, I suggest that you look at the flagicon template. What I think happened is that someone edited the template that displays the Russian flag. Reguardless, could you check that out for me?


 *  -Tennisuser123 02:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC) 
 *  -Tennisuser123 02:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC) 


 * I figured it out: . There it is; my theory is right. This eventually leads back to the 2007 Budapest Grand Prix article (the original problem), and it is a different I.P.--I don't know if the other admin who reverted it (if it was an admin) who took care of it, but that obviously it is up to you to block or not block the I.P.--The original offensive comment came from 136.186.1.187, and now it is another one.
 *  -Tennisuser123 02:41, 23 August 2007 (UTC) 
 *  -Tennisuser123 02:41, 23 August 2007 (UTC) 


 * Wow, before I can even check back to add the above, you have already taken care of it. Thanks a million for all of your help.
 *  -Tennisuser123 
 *  -Tennisuser123 

Why my article is deleted and how could I have access again in the text.
Hello

I put an article some days ago and now I see it is deleted. Before I write and save it, I had checked many other similar pages (under the same directory = list of record labels) and I wrote nothing more than them. I think that this was an unfair deletion. Otherwise, I do not know how else could somebody to describe a record-company.

In anyway, I'd like to have the text back as I had not stored it somewhere else in my PC. How could I have it??

Thanks in advance ANAZITISI Records Anazitisi records 12:15, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Why does Wikipedia hate pictures of people???
Why is it, no matter what the source, picture of living people are often deleted? I mean I put a picture of The Academy Is, direct from their label's website and it is still deleted!! Why? Another example is there is a picture of Drew Carey allowed yet Ryan Stiles is not allowed one, why??? -- ZookPS3 14:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your support re Joseph Owens situation
Hello Prof. Tesson -- Thank you for your word of support in my recent discussion with SqueakBox re the 2 different priests named Joseph Owens. I'm gratified to see that he has now fixed this with an appropriate disambig page and separate articles. Looks good and I've thanked him for it. Thanks again -- WikiPedant 18:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you
Again, thank you for your feedback and explanation regarding my concerns. I agree that one bad article does not warrant another. I will wait until we have a 3rd party review to post again about MeetingUniverse.com. As for your suggestion that I edit, I greatly appreciate the vote of confidence and will check in periodically to contribute and hopefully make a difference in the Wikipedia world.

Best,

Go5star 19:11, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: Return to Pirate's Isle
Cool, thanks for the notice ˉˉanetode╦╩ 21:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Deletion Inquiry
I would like to know why my new article "Bob Hunsberger" was deleted. The content was neutral and comprised of facts that are well documented in referenced sources.Gonemobile 23:43, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Even Though I Hate That Evil Place
Is Corporate nazism an acceptable redirect? -WarthogDemon 02:37, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I can think of worse redirects than that. :P Will do though, thanks! -WarthogDemon 02:50, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

this one too
Corporate nazis Tvoz | talk 02:57, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Redirecting Water Lilies -> Water Lillie
I'm pretty sure that Water Lilies is the correct title in English. Am I wrong? I tried moving the page back, but it wouldn't work. Zagalejo 05:11, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Zagalejo 05:47, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

WOW
Wow, you are fast. Just having a little fun, which has accomplished its intended purpose. Sorry for misusing the site; don't intend to use it further. Themostauthoritativeguyintheworld 05:25, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Me
I'm not saying I didn't make any mistakes with these deletions. When one was pointed out to me, I immediately apologized and restored the article. I do think the others were reasonable deletions, especially this and this. Several of them also contained extensive copy and pasting from other websites. Anyway, I'm really not worked up over this, more like vaguely annoyed. And bemused, lots of bemused. Thanks for your input, though; it is appreciated.-- <font color="White">But |<font color="White">seriously |<font color="White">folks  06:34, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, I have to take issue with your rule of thumb. I'm sure you have seen people aggressively defend the most ridiculous nonsense articles.  Literally nonsense.  Gibberish.  I know I have.  If I avoided deleting anything I thought someone might defend, I wouldn't be much of an admin.  And if we all followed that rule, we wouldn't have much of an encyclopedia. I have had a couple of people say "Yeah, you're right, the articles should have explained why the awards / journals / subgroups were significant or important."  We may be in the minority, but I think we're closest to the letter of CSD A7.  And if the consensus spirit of that criterion is contrary to its plain language, then that language needs to be changed.  Just some thoughts while I should be sleeping . . . -- <font color="White">But |<font color="White">seriously |<font color="White">folks   09:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I was not aware of cookie-gate or the evolution of A7, and I do appreciate the information. I am still learning the ropes as an admin and I appreciate the input.  Although it may not be obvious by my tendency to stick up for myself when I think I'm right, I do take these things on board.  Obviously, if I realized how significant these subgroups / journals / awards apparently are, I would not have speedied them.  I feel a little hung out to dry by the authors of the relevant articles, because I feel they should have done a better job of conveying the subjects' significance.  Also, I haven't mentioned it yet, but several of the articles were created recently by a user named "IEEE07", and, when I first came across them, they looked like a large-scale spamvertising crusade.  (Chalk that up to my ignorance of matters engineering, I suppose.)  Anyhow, lesson learned, and I will certainly be more hesitant to delete on notability grounds in the future.  Thanks for your patience! -- <font color="White">But |<font color="White">seriously |<font color="White">folks   15:51, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Waiting for the IE version of Twinkle . . . -- <font color="White">But |<font color="White">seriously |<font color="White">folks  16:19, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Too lazy to migrate. -- <font color="White">But |<font color="White">seriously |<font color="White">folks  16:26, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Kildare
Hi Pascal. Unfortunately, there were issues regarding your pagemove of last June on the above article. I had to move it back and clean up - hope you don't mind. See Talk:Kildare for the details. Just to let you know! - A l is o n  ☺ 19:38, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Bob Hunsberger Deletion
I would like to re-create the Bob Hunsberger page. You mentioned that the references link to his employer...it looks like only the first reference links to his current employer. If I remove it and re-post the article, is the page content acceptable? Gonemobile 23:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

From Cuddlyable3
Thank you for your message to my page. You are correct that I do not keep such material in view. I wish you well with the candidate you are supporting. Cuddlyable3 08:55, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Was it civil to summarise your message "Please leave the block notice visible until the block has expired." ? I edit only in my one name and that was blocked. My policy of excluding dispute on my page is consistent (This is valuable info for others!) and anyone can look at the page history.


 * BTW there was regrettable confusion about these conflicting times posted for the block to end: 16:55 (logged on), 17:19 (logged off, Autoblock ID: 608580). Both times turned out to be for a clock 2 hours west of me. My time is central european (Oslo-Rome).Cuddlyable3 19:58, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

re: Furthermore Beer Deletion
Hello, an article I authored on Furthermore Beer was recently deleted. Upon further reading, it appears my mistake was offering primary sources before secondary. Is there a record of the page's last known state before deletion? If so, what suggestions would you offer in order to ensure publication? In my last edit, I offered links to different secondary sources- would this be adequate?

Thanks much, Patrick Onepatrickkelly 19:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)onepatrickkellyOnepatrickkelly 19:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

re: Furthermore Beer
Hi Pascal, thanks for better explaining the terms of the deletion of the Furthermore Beer entry. If you had a moment, would you consider looking at the changes I have made to the page on my Usertalk page and suggest any changes that would improve my chances of publication?

Thanks much, PatrickOnepatrickkelly 22:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Cowboycaleb1
Please keep youself out of other people's business.Cowboycaleb1Cowboycaleb 00:26, 29 August 2007 (UTC) listen i was not arguing with sasquatch. i was trying to make my piont about something. i have never had any problems with sasquatch. i do apreciate your imput though.User:Cowboycaleb1Cowboycaleb 03:36, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Caitlin Upton
Hello. Since you deleted one of the versions of this article, you should probably be told that it is at deletion review here. --After Midnight 0001 17:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thx for the info. Pascal.Tesson 18:00, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:Fordfield4.jpg
Please go ahead and change the image, and delete the poorer one, which ever you think is better, if I had more time I would do it myself but I just kind of check in and out during week lately.--Mikerussell 23:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

photo
yes, I do want this image deleted - I had it deleted from wikipedia - I suppose I must have accidently uploaded it again some time ago.

The image itself is not copyright, but the scan itself is. Until I can get around to scannig my own image, it must go! Besides, it is not being used in articles.

Mrlopez2681 00:13, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Apologises
I would like to apologise to you for what has happened over the past few days, and feel that my block was justified. I wasn't going to appeal the block, because that would of made things worse. Apologises again. Also, Cowboycaleb1 has decided to personally insult others, including yourself, (see here). I don't wish to involve myself further in the matter. Thank you. Davnel03 14:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Beating your wife
"Have you stopped beating your wife" is the classic example of a leading_question which gives grounds for being disallowed by a court when, and only when, it is deemed to predicate facts not in evidence. Your reversion to RfA/WikipedianProlific suppresses Question 12 and the candidate's voluntary answer. Question 12 made no assumption that is not already in the public Wikipedia record viz: a previous statement by the candidate. By suppressing the question you suppress his explanation of it. That is a serious interference with the discussion. In a few hours the RfA closes and, unless you act quickly, it will be archived forever with your claim "This is essentially an "have you stopped beating your wife?" " prominently exposed to scrutiny by the Wikipedia bureaucrat. You may not want to be called to justify that hasty claim in times to come.Cuddlyable3 20:57, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

News Corp - dumb or what?
Hi man, check out this fortnight's Private Eye (no. 1192 - p3) where they expose our editing friend (Jason Ripley, a News Corp IT Coordinator - apparently). I added a bit on Deng's discussion page. Nice one. --Kylemew 09:57, 31 August 2007 (UTC)