User talk:Rebroad/Archive 2

Old stuff moved to User talk:Rebroad/Archive 1 --Rebroad 15:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

12 February 2007
You've been blocked for violation the three-revert rule. The edits in question are:


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Radiocarbon_dating&diff=107561973&oldid=105969583 - 14:22 - original edit
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Radiocarbon_dating&diff=107562805&oldid=107562401 - revert 1
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Radiocarbon_dating&diff=107565887&oldid=107564038 - revert 2
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Radiocarbon_dating&diff=107578898&oldid=107578114 - revert 3

Atlant 16:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll leave this one for a more experienced admin to handle, but I do count four reverts: That said, an involved admin shouldn't have blocked you. --BigDT 21:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 14:26, February 12, 2007 Rebroad (Talk | contribs | block) (←Undid revision 105809910 by Vsmith (talk) 576,000 google results say otherwise - see talk page)
 * 14:27, February 12, 2007 Rebroad (Talk | contribs | block) (←Undid revision 107562401 by Atlant (talk) - Refer to talk page - there is an ongoing dispute.)
 * 14:45, February 12, 2007 Rebroad (Talk | contribs | block) (until the dispute is resolved, do not delete this tag, as per wikipedia policy WP:NPOV. any further deletions shall be reported.)
 * 15:52, February 12, 2007 Rebroad (Talk | contribs | block) (←Undid revision 107570999 by Atlant (talk) - actually, this is the 3rd)
 * Hi, BigDT. Thanks for taking a look. In the four reverts you mentioned above, the first one was a revert of different material. Of the reverts for the NPOV tag, there were just the 3 you mentioned above. As I understand it, reverts for different content aren't grouped together. Please let me know if I'm incorrect here though. Thanks, --Rebroad 01:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

From WP:3RR:
 * An editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period. Any editor who breaches the rule may be blocked from editing for up to 24 hours in the first instance, and longer for repeated or aggravated violations.

Note that it says nothing about different material. Enjoy your time out. Vsmith 01:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Vsmith. Wow. You are indeed correct. This is the first time I'd realised this - I had originally thought they had to be the same revert, so it seems I did indeed perform 4 reverts on that article within 24 hours. I apologise for this, and can say that it certainly won't happen again now that I understand the 3RR more clearly. As the 3RR rule is to prevent edit wars, and I now have a better understanding of the rule and promise not to breach it, please could I be unblocked? Many thanks, --Rebroad 01:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I had already started typing this message and then got edit conflicted. In addition to the passage referenced by Vsmith, please note, "the rule does not convey an entitlement to revert three times each day, nor does it endorse reverting as an editing technique; rather, the rule is an 'electric fence'".  Obviously, there are some cases where it is necessary to revert a good faith non-vandalism edit ... but it's a better practice to stay completely away from 3RR.  When your revert is reverted, don't revert again - discuss the issue.  There is no deadline so if it takes a little time to get it right, that's ok.


 * Since you were unaware that 3RR applies not just to the same revert, but to any revert, I'm going to go ahead and unblock you. Blocks are preventative, not punitive and since you understand the issue now, there's nothing to prevent.  (See WP:BP - "Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia and should not be used as a punitive measure.")  Please, though, be very careful to tread lightly and when in doubt, discuss the issue.  (To any other administrator looking at this, please feel free to reverse me, but make sure that your reason is that there is something to prevent and that it isn't just a punitive block.)--BigDT 02:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Editor review
I completed an editor review of you. YechielMan 02:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Evolutiontalk move
Hi! I've replied there. Sorry if I was slightly upset - just we had had a major discussion about the possibility of the move... not all that long ago, and come to the conclusion that it was bes where it was, so a move needing an admin to revert is slightly annoying, without a little consensus building first. =) Adam Cuerden talk 13:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I removed some of your additions to Adobe Acrobat
Please see the talk page under. I contend that the information isn't meaningful in its present form because Acrobat is not one product and each product has different disk space requirements. Please do join in the talk. Notinasnaid 17:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Warning in re your page moves
Please stop. If you continue to move pages to bad titles or before discussions about the title have ended, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

You are bold in moving pages, which is good in the sense that you are not afraid to move pages. But you unilaterally move pages that you are not involved in without paying attention to what is going on. You move pages without discussion, without reading the ongoing discussion, and sometimes it appears, without having read the article.
 * Hi. I always read the article beforehand, so I'm not sure why you are saying it appears that I don't. --Rebroad 17:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I said that it appears that way because some of the article names you suggest really, really don't fit the article. Person is one.  Nephrology is another. Miss Mondegreen | Talk   07:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

The only unilateral page moves that should be done, are unobstructed, uncontroversial moves--unobstructed meaning that it's technically possible for the user to do it, and uncontroversial. Uncontroversial moves are generally small things like capitalization or spelling, and they are rarely name changes. Take a look at Requested_moves and look at the uncontroversial moves section (ones that are uncontroversial but need an admin). Pay attention to what gets posted there and what actually gets moved.
 * I considered all of these moved to be uncontroversial. I have seen many far more controversial moves being done in the recent past but having been labelled as uncontroversial. Is it your opinion that the are contraversial, or are there any guidelines on determining what is and is not contraversial please? --Rebroad 17:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * There are guidelines. Requested_moves says that if there is anyone who may oppose the move, then it's not uncontroversial.  There are not that many moves that don't even have to be raised.  You don't rename a major article without raising it for discussion.  If the article talk page has any one of the templates saying that it's controversial or that people can't keep cool heads, you don't do even a minor change without raising it for discussion.  If there has been previous discussion about a name change that did not end in consensus, you reraise the issue. Miss Mondegreen | Talk   07:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I have read and re-read Requested_moves and I can find no mention of that definition of uncontroversial. There are enough users using wikipedia these days that based on your definition above, there would be no such thing as an uncontroversial move! --Rebroad 00:14, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * From the top of Requested moves:
 * "Only list here proposals that are clearly uncontroversial but require administrator help to complete. Things like capitalization and spelling mistakes would be appropriate here. If there is any prior discussion as to the name of the article please link to it. If there is any possibility that the proposed page move could be opposed by anyone, do not list it in this section."
 * And, there are lots of users at Wikipedia. There was a reason I suggested going to WP:Requested moves and watching the uncontroversial moves section for a few days. There's a page that I've requested a move for.  The current page name is against wiki guidelines for names and is problematic in many other areas, but it's technically a controversial move anyway.  If you put your move up for discussion on the talk page, or put it up as a controversial move--you'll often find it's not that big a deal.  However, one of the reasons yours have been really big deals, is that you move, or try to move very active articles that have ongoing move discussions or have had them and not reached consensus or have big templates saying "this is a controverial article" and you ignore that.  One of the reasons uncontroversial moves ask is there anyone who could disagree with you is because it's not a move that can be undone by a regular editor, and it's worth taking a few days to get consensus in order to avoid the fallout of a move done without consensus. Miss Mondegreen | Talk   10:47, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Moving Person → Person (philosophical) or Telephone jack → Telephone socket or the series of moves you did to try and move Cloud → Nephology are all controversial moves.
 * I disagree here. There were simple and valid reasons for all of them, and no indication of current or on-going controversy. Please can you point me in the direction of anything that would indicate that it was obvious they would have been contraversial? --Rebroad 17:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Controversial means something different than the dictionary definition here, and I think that might be what's confusing you. Controversial here, when moving a page, simply means that someone might disagree with you.  And, btw, if you had looked at the talk page for the Person article, there was a template warning you that it was a controversial article and multiple name change discussions. Miss Mondegreen | Talk   07:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I refer you to my previous comment. --Rebroad 00:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Telephone jack, I understand you thought was incorrect terminology, but it appears you didn't read the rest of the article because you only changed the article name and didn't seem interested in editing the rest of the "slang" out of the article. As it turns out, it's a British English/American English difference and now the article name either needs to be changed back or the article has to be reworked for the new name. Either way, it's additional work, and while it may be well intentioned, you continually go off alone, half-cocked without a full understanding of the topic, and in it appears in this case, without reading the article. Also, this was a factual name change as you thought the article was using slang terminology and yet you did not provide a source.
 * It is against wikipedia policy to reword articles due to british/american differences. e.g. a british person should not change all instances of "color" with "colour", and therefore, the article did not need editing, only merging, as is what was done. --Rebroad 17:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The article already had a merge tag--to merge to Telephone plug--an article on a different topic. The merge tag was there because of content issues, and since the merge tag was there, I'm still confused as to why you changed the name of the article.  If you thought that telephone jack was incorrect terminology, was slang as your edit summary says, then you should have edited the entire article--all instances of it to reflect the proper name that you gave the article--telephone socket.  If you knew all along that it was a british/american difference, and knew the wikipedia policy against rewording, why did you change the article name--a change specifically against that policy? Miss Mondegreen | Talk   07:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe my earlier explanation is sufficient. I'm not quite sure I understand what it is you do not understand. --Rebroad 00:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Your move summary said that you were moving from jack to socket as jack was slang. You didn't bother to research this or provide a source, not did you bother to correct the "slang" in the rest of the article.  When I left that comment, you replied that "It is against wikipedia policy to reword articles due to british/american" and that the article therefore did not need editing, but merging (the article was merged to plug), as was done.  However, the merge template was on the article, but you didn't merge to there, you moved to jack, so that argument makes no sense.  If you knew at the time that it was a british/american difference as you said on your talk page why did you make the switch, and if you didn't, and genuinely thought that jack was slang, my initial comments about lack or source and not bothering to edit the article still stand.  Miss Mondegreen | Talk   10:47, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

In an effort to rename Cloud → Nephology, as Nephology had been a stub since 04, you moved Nephology in order to move Cloud without discussion. You're right, a one-line stub since 04 is bad. But an article about the study of something and the something itself are not the same thing, and moving Nephology in order to move Cloud is incredibly underhanded--you only commented suggesting a move (Talk:Cloud once you were unable to complete it yourself, and since the move never went through, that left articles Nephology and Nephology (to be deleted) redirecting to Cloud with Talk:Nephology redirecting to Talk:Nephology (to be deleted).
 * The "to be deleted" move was done accidently, and as far as I know I left nothing pointing to it. Please let me know if I am incorrect here. Thanks. --Rebroad 17:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't understand that. You wanted to rename Cloud.  You couldn't do it without moving or deleting Nephology.  How do you accidently rename a page, and then accidently redirect it?  Btw, if you had checked the what links here page, you would have found a series of pages linked to Nephology, which redirected to Nephology (to be deleted), which redirected to Cloud.  Also, I get that the article is a stub.  But the article can't be expanded if it's a redirect.  If people are truely disappointed, they can click on the Cloud article which is wikilinked.  Nephology is currently listed on the Articles for expansion page and hopefully will soon, but we don't go around redirecting pages that are too short.  If the subject is not notable or important, then, yes, we do, or we put it up for deletion, but we don't decide that the article isn't good enough yet, so people should go look at this better one instead.  If we did that, nothing would ever be written.  Miss Mondegreen | Talk   07:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I did not want to rename the Cloud article, and from what I can tell, it never has been. I believe Nephology is a subset of cloud and due to it's lack of content and that it is a stub since 04, does not warrant it's own article... yet. Should the nephology section of the cloud article garner sufficient size, then and only then should be it split off into it's own article. In the meantime, a redirect appears to be the most suitable solution rather than a complete delete as you suggest. --Rebroad 00:20, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Nephology is not a subset of cloud, and I'm not sure where you got that idea. Nor will the Nephology part in the cloud article get bigger--it doesn't belong there. And the reason I keep suggesting you put it up for deletion is two-fold.  One, I don't think you'd win an Afd on Nephology, and two, if you did, It should be meteorology editors voting on the Afd, and if they thinks that it's not notable, then that's fine, it's their area of expertise, not mine.  I really have no idea why you think that a nephology section is going to develop sufficent size and be split off and this has been discussed elsewhere.
 * Also, I would appreciate not being lied to. At 15:06, 7 February 2007, you renamed the Nephology article, Nephology (to be deleted) with the following edit summary: "(precursor to renaming "Cloud" article to "Nephology" (the correct scientific term)".
 * You later left a comment on the Cloud talk page when I believe that you realised you couldn't make the move alone because you had made an intervening minor edit to Nephology, proposing that the Cloud page be moved to Nephology.
 * If you have some other explanation for these edits, which come from your username, I'll listen. But I'm not incapable of reading edit summaries and comments, and I don't appreciate being lied to.  Miss Mondegreen | Talk   10:47, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

You moved Person → Person (philosphical), not even spelling philosophical correctly, based on the disambiguation page's description of the article. I'm assuming (good faith) that you did not go to the article and see that it was not an article on philosophy and do this anyway and that you did not go to the talk page and see the numberous name change discussions and do this anyway. You again left behind double redirects, and once again made it impossible for non-Administrators to revert your change.
 * I noticed the spelling mistake within a couple of minutes, and moved it accordingly. And yes, I did read the article, and yes, I did notice that there was some duplication due to people not having seen the disambig page and realised it was supposed to be regarding the philosophical aspects only. This is another reason why the move was so important and urgent. --Rebroad 17:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It took you eight hours for you to notice the spelling mistake and fix it, not a few minutes. You noticed that there was some duplication due to people not having seen the disambig page?  You realized it was supposed to be regarding the philosophical aspects only?  How?  Based on what?  The disambig page?  This is what I mean, about coming to articles and thinking that you have an understanding of a situation and that the move you're making is clear cut and obvious and uncontroversial and it's not.  Disambig pages DON'T define articles.  They describe articles based on the articles themselves.  So if the article changes, the disambig page changes, not the other way around.  The Person page currently discusses both the philosophical and legal aspects of personhood and so naming the article Person (philosophical) because that's what the disambig page says was beyond silly.  Yes, there's currently discussion to rename the article, and perhaps split the article and how the article is going to address things is something that has to be decided and I think that most people do want to see the disambig page located at Person, but those aren't decisions you can come in and make, whether or not you think we're all wrong, and they certainly aren't decisions you can make based on what another page says.  Miss Mondegreen | Talk   07:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Where is it stated a wikipedia policy that it is the article that defines the disambiguation page and not the disambiguation page that defines the article? I don't see any obvious wisdom in such a blinkered approach. --Rebroad 00:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Here is the Wikipedia Disambiguation guideline. Disambiguation pages provide a list of all pages on Wikipedia that are about things with the same name. The disambiguation page was describing the article, and in this case was doing it incorrectly.  You renamed the Person article based on the disambiguation page and gave the Person article a really misleading title, when in fact what should have been done by someone who had read both the article and the disambiguation page was someone should have realized that the description on the disambiguation page was inaccurate and edited it.
 * That is what I meant when I said the articles define the disambig page. The disambig page is simply a list of the articles and a description of them, so you do not change an article based on the disambigs description, but you change the description to fit the article.  I'm not sure why you would need policy to support that---it seems fairly self evident and obvious.  Changing an article to fit a description of the article seems "blinkered" to me.  If someone describes me as being 6'8", I shouldn't miraculously expect to grow or wear enormous shoes or stilts--I should correct the description.  Miss Mondegreen | Talk   10:47, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

You have been warned about not moving pages without prior discussion (when you moved Evolution to Evolution (biology) and only came to the talk page/WP:RM for discussion after the fact.
 * I am not aware of any prior warning regarding moving talk pages. Please could you point me towards this in case I have forgotten about it? Thanks. --Rebroad 18:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I wasn't referring to moving the talk page but the article page--you came to the talk page for the article to discuss the move after the fact. This is I believe your most recent warning prior to this about moving pages without discussion.  The general rule of thumb on moving talk pages is to move them with article pages, which I think you always do.  But again, consensus required.  Miss Mondegreen | Talk   07:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I still don't see any mention of any warnings, from anyone authorised to give them or otherwise! --Rebroad 00:26, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I linked to it above, "Anyway, you shouldn't move a major page like this without prior discussion." Miss Mondegreen | Talk  10:47, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it's great that you come to Wikipedia articles and have strong opinions about them and go and make changes. Be bold is a tenant of Wikipedia. But avoiding discussion is not. Making bold changes about articles you seem not to have read, and without having read the discussion page is not ok. Making major moves and actively avoiding informing people and discussion is not ok. Making major moves and doing them improperly, leaving behind double redirects and no redirects and orphan pages and needlessly editing moved pages so that those moves can't be undone by anyone other than an administrator is not ok. Moving a page is a major edit, that can't always easily be undone and you not only move pages, renaming them without discussion, but you often do it improperly.
 * AFAIK Wikipedia policy recommends being bold, then if upon realising it causes controversy, discussing. I do not believe I have deviated from this recommended approach, but please do let me know if you can find any examples where I have done so prior to being made aware of this recommendation. Thanks. Also, where do you get the idea that I have "actively avoided informing people" please? I cannot see where the grounds for this accusation are. Also, regarding double-redirects etc, I dispute that I have done this. Also, which moves can be undone WITHOUT admin access? I was not aware this was possible. I'm sorry, but I don't understand what point you are trying to make here. --Rebroad 17:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * This is what I meant about not understanding page moves. The first time I moved a page, I read the move page page very carefully and I read the recommended reading.  A page move can be undone if there are no edits to the page other than the automatic redirect.  When you change that redirect or make some other minor edit, now in order to undo this, an admin is required.  So if you have pages A, B, and C, and you move C to D, you can move B to C and A to B.  Or, you can move D back to C.  At least that's what I believe.  Check out the reading I recommended--it'll explain it all.
 * In re "Be Bold"--no, that's incorrect. That's exactly what Be Bold says not to do--I've linked to it.  First, there's a reminder at the top of the page to use common sense.  Common sense should dictate here that Be Bold does not override other tenants of Wikipedia--consensus, discussion, etc.  Be bold says to be bold but not reckless.  Read the "but don't be reckless" part--your edits have been reckless.  You renamed pages unaware of current naming conflicts, unaware that the name you were choosing was inaccurate.  You renamed jack to socket because you thought jack was slang when if you had looked for sources to verify your information you would have found this was incorrect.  If you understood the terms Nephology and Cloud better, you'd understand why it was patently incorrect to have the Cloud article named Nephology--but you didn't research it before going ahead.  Also, the guidelines on moving pages are clear too, and only unobstructed, uncontroversial (meaning uncontested moves that have no plausible chance of being contested) should be moved without discussion.  Miss Mondegreen | Talk   07:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * What I meant by actively avoiding informing people is that you're making controversial page moves left and right--page moves that are not supposed to be made unilaterally, pages moves that you are supposed to bring up for discussion first and you are not following procedure. You are not proposing the moves of WP:RM, or even commenting on the talk pages.  You may not have understood that these were in fact controversial moves, and moves that shouldn't have been made unilaterally, but you should still have had some understanding that moving pages is a big deal and you might want to consult with others.  Your pages moves don't hold up--most seem to be reverted quickly.  You've also be warned, within the last month about moving pages without discussion first and subsequently ignored that warning.   You don't seem to shy away from talk pages in other circumstances, and this seems like active avoidance of informing people of your edits.  If not, and you really didn't comment because you believed no comment to be necessary, then you misunderstood the gravity of renaming articles.  Renaming an article is a MAJOR EDIT--one that isn't done without community discussion and consensus.  Miss Mondegreen | Talk   07:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not warning you so that you never move a page again. But before you do move pages again, please read meta:Help:Moving a page as the move page suggests you do. You constantly leave behind double redirects or talk pages that don't redirect or edit the redirect page with a minor edit so that nothing can be moved there and if you understand moving pages a little better you won't leave behind the myriad of mistakes you have been. You should also read Wikipedia's guidelines on naming pages.
 * Many thanks for the pointers here. I shall certainly read this articles. I'm still not quite sure what the relevance of the "minor edit" you mentioned above. Does this make any difference? AFAIK the talk pages are always moved along with the article automatically. Isn't this correct? Thanks, --Rebroad 18:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * If you check the little box, yes. Minor edits like redirecting elsewhere or I don't remember but you did something else that you checked off as a minor edit.  Any edit to the page that becomes the redirect means that nothing can be moved to it without admin help.  Miss Mondegreen | Talk   07:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

And if you want to change the name of the article, make a move that isn't minor--you think it is misnamed or needs a better one, or doesn't acurately reflect the contents of the article, then before you move anything, stop and take a look around. Read the article and the talk page. Is there a current move discussion? If so, weigh in. Has this been discussed before and decided? If so, it's probably best to move on. If you're reaching fresh territory, bring it up for discussion informally, or propose it formally at Requested_moves. Do the latter especially if the article doesn't get a lot of traffic, because that will get people to weigh in. Get consensus first, and this will keep your moves from being reverted and you from looking like a vandal.
 * I doubt anyone would consider my edits to look like those of a vandal! Anyone who suggests this would of course be assuming bad faith. --Rebroad 18:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm saying that because I thought you were and so have others. Miss Mondegreen | Talk  07:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

You're an experienced editor. You know how to use a talk page, you've posted at WP:RM before. Your edits may be well-intentioned, and you're avoidance of the system might be too--but it looks like you're trying to force your edits on others. Either way, you've been warned more than once now and been provided with tools that should help you and if you have any questions, you can always ask. Miss Mondegreen | Talk  09:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't believe I have been warned previously. And I don't believe that a warning at this stage is warranted either, only a need to point me in the direction of the relevant policy, which I believe you have done now, and I shall read asap. So thanks again for that. --Rebroad 18:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * in 2004. &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 18:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Also on the Evolution talk page when you moved it to Evolution (biology)--that was what I mentioned earlier. That was fairly recent. By the way, we warn people about one or two bad page moves so that they know what they are doing wrong.  You've made dozens and been warned before to communicate with people.  I did, assuming good faith not just leave you a template warning but go through your recent edits with some explanations.  I hope that this helped you understand moving articles better and what controversial means in this context.  Miss Mondegreen | Talk   07:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Stop removing content and pushing against expansion
Stop removing content and keeping users from expanding Nephology

According to this edit diff, you think Nephology "does not yet warrant it's own article. please leave redirect or expand article".

This makes no sense. One, this ignores that articles are rated two ways. Assessment--how good the article is, and importance. So a subject of some importance could be a stub, because people haven't written about it yet. That doesn't mean that we try and move something over it or delete it or redirect it to another page--we work on it. We wiki-link to articles that haven't been created yet so that someone sees the red link and clicks and creates an article. We don't hid stubs, we want people to find them and improve them and we certainly don't hid the little knowledge that their is.

The second reason this edit of yours makes no sense, and looks a lot like vandalism, is that it's made ten minutes after this one. A comment at requests for expansion where you replied to my request for expansion saying that you thought it was sufficent to leave it as a redirect, because, "until the article gets bigger, the study of clouds does not yet warrant its own article".

The article can't get bigger if you direct people away from it or move it or try to delete it. It can't get bigger if when I make a request for people to expand it, you discourage them and go and change it to a redirect. You are actively encouraging users not to work on this article, keeping people away in a variety of manners, moving the page, redirecting it, and at the same time using the fact that no one is working on the article as an excuse for keeping people away from it.

If you have a legitimate issue with the article, and think that the topic is not notable--then put the article up for deletion. If you have some other issue with the article, take it to the talk page, do something. If your only issue is that it is a stub, then work on it--get others to work on it, don't keep them from it. Miss Mondegreen | Talk  08:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Your explanation
In re rather unorthodox method to speedy delete articles

First, I'm unsure why you went to WP:ANI, because I thought that I had left a fairly clear explanation, and given what happened subsequently, I think supports the decision I made.

You're correct, standard practice would have been to put the article up for speedy deletion. But the user who wrote the article was brand new--to the extent that the article was not wikified at all, and new users don't know a lot, and have quite often had an article speedy deleted and not been there for it and lost their work, work they wanted.

So I left a clear edit summary and comment on the talk page, so even if the user didn't know to look at edit summaries or the watchlist or how to move it back, they'd have "You have a new message" as soon as they logged in again. The user was free to move it back at any time, I wasn't trying to circumvent anything.

As it turns out, the user hasn't logged in since. They wouldn't have been able to userfy the page themselves or save it, or comment on any deletion process. If they log in two months from now or a year from now, all of those options are still available to them. They can be here when someone reverts to the redirect, or when it's put up for deletion or they can work on it on their own--whatever could have happened now can still happen then, but their article will have a chance for survival if they ever come back.

By the way, it's often a good idea to ask someone about a decision they made before going somewhere official. Expecially as I'd left a summary that referred to standard practice and made it clear (I thought), that I was doing something specifically different because of the circumstances.

If you could tell me what part of it didn't get across to you or you found unclear, I'd work on that in the future. Miss Mondegreen | Talk  09:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)