User talk:RL0919/Archive 2010

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

In the opening paragraph of the Ayn Rand article, the following sentence contains a grammatical error that I recently corrected: “Born and educated in Russia, Rand emigrated to the United States in 1926.” To make the sentence grammatically correct, I changed the incorrect word emigrated for the right word immigrated. It appears that you have since undone my change.

Because these words are spelled similarly and often used interchangeably and incorrectly by the media, it is understandable that the confusion arises here. To be clear, emigrate signals a departure, meaning to leave a country: “emigrate from an oppressive nation;” by contrast, immigrate means to enter or arrive to a country: “immigrate to a tolerant nation.” A clear distinction is available for your reference in the usage note at this site: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/migrate?db=luna. Please undo your edit to this sentence so that it correctly reads, “Born and educated in Russia, Rand immigrated to the United States in 1926.”

Thank you.

98.176.232.168 (talk) 12:11, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

You have misread the edit history. The wording in question was changed in this edit by IP 75.64.110.220, not by me. Since the sentence covers both Rand's departure from Russia and her entry into the United States, I am indifferent as to which of these words is used. --RL0919 (talk) 16:05, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I apologize for attributing the change in question to you. As to your response, if you are indifferent to whether emigrated or immigrated is placed in the sentence, then I opt for the right word so that the sentence is grammatically correct. I am changing the sentence to: “Born and educated in Russia, Rand immigrated to the United States in 1926.”

98.176.232.168 (talk) 08:06, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Simonida Rajčević. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simonida Rajčević. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi there! As the admin that deleted Template:TPATF, I come here to report that Template:The Princess and the Frog has been created with the same content and still with only a couple of articles linked. Greetings! --LoЯd ۞pεth 01:09, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I've speedy deleted the new template as a re-creation of deleted content. In the future, you can tag any similar recreations with a {{db-repost}} template; you don't have to come to me specifically. --RL0919 (talk) 01:21, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi,

I'm posting the following request to all people participating in Checkmarx speedy deletion, hoping for a reconsideration.

A couple of weeks ago, Checkmarx was deleted from Wikipedia. It was a speedy deletion, and I didn't even have an opportunity to be there to defend myself, and this value in Wikipedia. I'm including "myself" here, because there was a personal attack on me as a user, and I don't think it was naive.

Just a reminder - a month ago, a user named Xodlop requested a Speedy-Deletion of the article named "Checkmarx". The reasons were, among others: notability, the author works for the company, many references are pointed to the company web site and after all - "it's an advertisement for non notable company".

Yes, I work for Checkmarx, and I think it is only natural that a worker of a company (just like a student of a well-known philosopher for example) would write about his company. I never tried to hide this relation; actually when I tried to put some personal info in my page, so people can contact me, if needed, I was suggested by an administrator not to do so. But I am using my name and affiliation proudly, not hiding.
I did my best to make a non-promotional article. Actually I copied the article of another company (Fortify Software, which is the leading company in the area of source code analysis today), and just "translated" it for Checkmarx. I got many requests for changes, from various administrators (and a lot of help, some of which you might find in my talk page or the Checkmarx talk page), changed according to all requests, and from a certain point I got no more about the article. And it's there for a couple of months already.

Yes, some references are from the company's website (as all articles contain) or companies related to it. Some are not (OWASP, CWE and alike).
Yes, Checkmarx is an average software company, but I completely disagree it is non-notable in the area of Source Code Analysis. The company is certainly a notable company in this field (which might be non-notable as a field, but I don't think it is), and known as one for every person dealing in this area. If Checkmarx is non-notable, I guess all (most?) other companies listed in the list of tools for Source Code Analysis (in Wikipedia) should be non-notable as well.

Still, they are not, for some reason.

I wanted to ask the user Xodlop why he/she asked for deletion of this company of all Source code Analysis companies, but the user does not exist anymore, for some reason (actually there's only a "welcome" message in his/her talk page dating 2 days AFTER the deletion request. Strange. I cannot "fight" ghosts.

So what do we have here?
A non-existent user asks for fast-deletion.
The company's article was no different than others, and (like others) was more than once cleaned from what looked like advertisements.
The article was there for a long time, and approved by more than one administrator. Where were you when I got all the comments on the article, and fixed them one by one? It was a lot of work, and I got good responses.
(correct me if I'm wrong here) All the participants were not experts on the field of Source Code Analysis, so notability in this area couldn't really be decided. It is very easy (and unfair, I think) to convince people about notability in an area they do not master. I'm sure my mother will be convinced that even Oracle (for example) is not-notable if I try to convince her. I can tell her it's a small non-notable competitor of Microsoft's minor product (SQL-Server), and show her there is no coverage of it in any book she reads.
There is coverage of the company - not very large, but it appears in relevant places (Application Security sources).

I'm sorry I wasn't around for a while to "defend myself" and the article. It was very quick, you know. As Xodlop him/herself mentioned - I was easy to access.

Thanks for reading to this point. I appreciate it.

I truly hope you reconsider.

Adarw (talk) 15:42, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Since you posted the same message to several users, I have replied at User talk:Adarw#Checkmarx deletion in the hope that the discussion can be centralized there. Thanks. --RL0919 (talk) 16:33, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi RL0919

Could you help me "combine" in-line citations #3 and #6 on the page The City and the Pillar?

I was successful in combining several others, but just couldn't get these two to work, even following the same syntax!

Npd2983 (talk) 23:20, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done. --RL0919 (talk) 23:31, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Now I see my folly - the two references in a row threw me off - I did not have matching pairs of ref & /ref Thanks! Npd2983 (talk) 00:40, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Forgot to add the citations. thanks for the note. Will do so soon :) Tc ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 20:51, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Added two (I think) citations. Will dig out archives and add more. Tks▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 07:29, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Template:Go has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you.   — Jeff G. ツ 15:48, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

RL, if around, do drop in here and leave your comments please. Thanks ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 04:39, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Could you please explain why you thought that relisting did not produce movement towards consensus? Thanks, –Black Falcon ^(talk) 22:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Sure. The relist produced some new comments for and against deletion, but no new arguments and no indication that any commenters were being persuaded to change their positions. In fact, several editors made a point of reaffirming their prior positions. Since the point of the discussion is to either surface or produce a consensus, and the discussion seemed to be moving towards a hardening of existing disagreement, I did not see any point in extending a debate that was already in WP:TLDR territory. --RL0919 (talk) 22:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. As much as I would have preferred to see the template deleted, I am equally glad that the discussion is finally over. Cheers, –Black Falcon ^(talk) 00:30, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

You kind of stomped all over me (probably a bit inadvertently), but oh well. When you get a chance, please see Wikipedia talk:Requested moves#renaming a template
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 11:37, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I've replied there. I'm heading off on vacation, so if there is further discussion, it may be a day or two before I reply again. Thanks. --RL0919 (talk) 13:51, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello RL0919. I would like a blurb at the top of the Earthsea page to read as such:

This article is about the written Earthsea works. For the Anime film, see Tales from Earthsea (film). For the television miniseries, see Legend of Earthsea.

I know there is some template to do this. I tried to copy the syntax of a similar template/blurb from the Harry Potter page, and try as I might I cannot get it to come out sensibly. Would you mind taking a crack at it? If you are really clever, you could mask the parenthetical "(film)"!

Hope you are enjoying your vacation!

Npd2983 (talk) 02:51, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

think I asked too soon - I just got it to work

I started a discussion in the above mentioned template and I see now that you wrongly wrote in the discussion page that the result of the discussion was to keep the template.It must be a mistake since we agreed that the template needed at least to be changed. --Walk&Talk (talk) 13:15, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

A "keep" outcome means that the consensus was to keep the template rather than to delete, merge or redirect it. It does not mean that the template cannot be edited. Feel free to make any changes you deem appropriate (within the boundaries of civil editing), or if you believe your edits would be controversial, raise them on the template talk page. The close of the TFD does nothing to preclude that. I even encouraged further editing in my closing statement. If you believe the TFD close was defective in some way, you are welcome to challenge it at WP:DRV, but considering the discussion was very one-sided in favor of keeping the template, I doubt you would get a different result.

Also, I notice that you removed the {{Tfdend}} box from the template's talk page. The purpose of this box is to record the template's history at TFD, and it is not appropriate to remove it. I have restored it. --RL0919 (talk) 17:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi! Earlier today, someone used cut & paste to move Objectivism, Ayn Rand, and homosexuality to Objectivism and homosexuality. You fixed that move to preserve the history; thanks for that!

However, the talk page has not been moved; it is still at Talk:Objectivism, Ayn Rand, and homosexuality. Shouldn't it be moved to Talk:Objectivism and homosexuality as well? Currently, the talk page is redirected in the opposite direction from the article itself. I'm wondering if you could fix this -- I think it requires administrator powers. Thanks! — Lawrence King ^(talk) 05:04, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I thought I had moved the talk page also, but I guess I missed a step. It's fixed now. Thanks for letting me know. --RL0919 (talk) 05:35, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! — Lawrence King ^(talk) 05:57, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I added a comment related to both Template:Pakistan terrorist attacks and the List of terrorist incidents in Pakistan since 2001 on the talk page for the list of incidents regarding casualty significance and organization. Please feel free to comment or provide any insight. Sottolacqua (talk) 16:35, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the article - that I understand you created - that is informative and fun to read. I like the abundancy of quotes especially and immediately introduced one to Polish Requiem. Thanks for the idea, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:23, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I noticed Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2010_February_14#Template:Tooshort_2 isn't closed yet. Any special reason? Debresser (talk) 19:00, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Since the merge is clearly supported, probably no admin has gotten around to checking out the templates to see what work is involved in the merge, and they don't want to close it until they know the situation. At least that is why I haven't touched it yet myself. It is also kind of a short discussion, easy to miss among the longer ones around it, so that might have something to do with it as well. If no one gets to it before, I should be able to look at it tonight or tomorrow. --RL0919 (talk) 19:36, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks. There should definitely not be much work involved in the redirect of a fairly new template. Debresser (talk) 19:37, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Dear RLO919 I have a question for you. When you gave me that message that the Template Disney's The Princess and the Frog was deleted, I didn't understand fully the reason for it. I did not see the deletion descussion and why does the Template always get deleted, but I see that all the list of characters have a Template at the end. Why should there be none in this case? I'll be waiting for you're reply thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Federollo (talk • contribs) 07:25, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I can't speak for what is on other articles, but the reasoning of the "delete" comments in the discussion (see Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2009 December 22#Template:TPATF) was that there are not enough articles about this particular film to justify having a navbox for it. Many editors believe navigation templates should only be used when there are more than a handful of links to navigate. There is not a strong, consistent standard for how many links are needed, but in this case the consensus of the discussion was that this film didn't have enough.

Note that the original discussion was about a template that someone else had created, not the ones you created later, but the links involved are basically the same. That's why I keep deleting them, because the general rule is that if something is essentially a recreation of material that has already been deleted due to a formal deletion discussion, it should be deleted again unless something has changed in the meantime (more articles being linked, for example, or a change in the Wikipedia community's standards for how many links are needed). I hope that explains the situation more clearly, but let me know if you have any other questions. --RL0919 (talk) 15:14, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

As I was closing this, I noticed that you were volunteering to perform the merge. Let me know if you need any help. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:39, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Sure. I'll take a look at it this evening. --RL0919 (talk) 14:15, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, I added the 'auto' parameter to {{Unreferenced}} and its documentation. Based on the discussion, I did not add the 'type' parameter, because that is only used for categories and my interpretation of the discussion is that the separate categories were viewed as unnecessary. I also haven't redirected {{Unreferenced stub}}, because I wanted you to be able to review first. Let me know if you believe there is anything else that needs to be merged. --RL0919 (talk) 14:25, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 14:36, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I redirected it and everything appears to work as expected. --RL0919 (talk) 20:06, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

On March 2, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Letters of Ayn Rand, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 12:09, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Cool. I never had an article I created on DYK before. I can never think of what would be interesting to submit. Glad someone did it for me. :-) --RL0919 (talk) 14:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

By the way, can you speed close this? Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/National_awakening_of_Macedonians --JokerXtreme (talk) 23:49, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

 Done

You haven't done the redirect yet. Got distracted? :-P Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 23:57, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

• Ah, I see, I'm just faster than you. Don't forget High Tech Redneck too. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 23:58, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Both done now. --RL0919 (talk) 23:59, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Go for it. The easiest solution would be to just change them all to {{coord|lat|lon|region:AU_type:landmark|display=title}}, but it would be even better if they could be merged with the infobox when possible (e.g., {{infobox bridge}} or {{infobox building}}). Let me know if you need any help, and thanks for offering. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:07, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Oooh, another chance to use AWB. --RL0919 (talk) 17:38, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I finished orphaning it, and went ahead and deleted it since there didn't seem to be anything else to do. --RL0919 (talk) 02:06, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Could you userfy it for me so I can improve it? Thanks. 4 T C 06:34, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

 Done Restored and moved to User:4/Calculator numeral. --RL0919 (talk) 15:15, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

If you are interested, see User:Gadget850/Reference templates and the talk. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 15:59, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I hope you don't mind me approaching you to ask if there's any possibility you might consider withdrawing your deletion nomination of the EastEnders character infobox. I'm not asking because I necessarily think it should stay - I fundamentally agree that there should be consistency with the existing general character infoboxes. After a discussion at the EastEnders WikiProject, I can see that there's agreement that the excessive family parameters need to be trimmed, and there is intention and willingness to work on cutting them down and bringing everything into line. My main concern is largely that 'Infobox EastEnders character 2' is transcluded in over 300 articles, and that working to reach a consensus on parameters and then putting that into effect is going to take a lot of time and effort, and that under the pressure of a deletion discussion isn't the most ideal circumstance for that to take place.

The way the EastEnders template is currently set up, it divides relations by sex, something which neither {{Infobox character}} or {{Infobox soap character}} does - even with the aid of AWB, changing that in all of the articles the template is used in is going to be a very long job. What I'd ideally like is for the project to have a little breathing room to assess how best to go about this, rather than being forced to make quick decisions, laboriously executed within the time constraints of a deletion discussion. I suppose I'm asking for more of a stay of execution, if you will, and of course if you felt that progress was not being made within a reasonable time frame, I wouldn't object to you raising the discussion again. Apologies for the length of this message, I just wanted to fully explain my rationale so you understand my request isn't just a case of WP:ILIKEIT! Thank you for your time. Frickative 19:08, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

If the concern about time constraints is mostly related to implementation, I don't think we have a big problem. TFD is a bit different from, say, article deletion, in that it is already understood that the process of implementing the changes may take a while. There is a "holding pen" for templates where a decision has been made to replace or merge a template, but there is ongoing work to update fields, replace transclusions, etc. So as long as we can form a consensus within seven days as to what to do, the time for doing it is not specifically limited. In the specific case, if the consensus was (for example) to create a new {{Infobox soap character 2}} that addressed some common concerns that people have with {{Infobox soap character}}, and then replace the show-specific templates with that, I would be OK with that solution and it could be implemented over several weeks. --RL0919 (talk) 20:00, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I wasn't aware that TFD differed from AFD like that, so that is very helpful. It seems to be something of a common theme that the existing {{Infobox soap character}} template meets the needs of US soaps better than UK ones, so if the discussion flags up the specifics of why that is the case, I'm sure an acceptable compromise can be reached. Thanks again :) Frickative 20:23, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Did you delete the template Biased Arabic Wiki from userspace without any prior warning??? Please respond and show me who gave you permission to do so. --λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ^[talk] 03:30, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I did delete the user-space copy, as I explained in my closing statement for the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 February 27#Template:Biased Arabic Wikipedia. The "delete" arguments were based on this userbox being divisive and contrary to the guidelines at Wikipedia:Userboxes and Wikipedia:User page. I believed this argument carried more weight than the "move" arguments that thought the box was inappropriate for template space but would be within the latitude allowed for user space. I'm sorry if you thought you were due some additional notification prior to the user space copy being deleted, but I don't believe that was a necessary step considering that you made the copy while it was up for deletion. You chose to interpret the consensus for yourself rather than waiting for an uninvolved party to do so, and as a consequence, when I closed the discussion as "delete", there were two instances of the box to delete rather than one.

If you believe my close of the discussion was in error, you are of course welcome to raise the matter at Wikipedia:Deletion review, and if the consensus there is that I was wrong, the box may be restored or perhaps put up for a fresh discussion at WP:MFD. But I would encourage you to consider finding a more constructive way to raise awareness about any problems you believe exist at Arabic Wikipedia. A more positively worded userbox (perhaps linked to an explanatory user space essay) calling for reform of Arabic Wikipedia, without using divisive rhetoric, would still get the point across and would almost certainly survive deletion challenges. --RL0919 (talk) 14:55, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I am afraid what you said and what you did is totally incorrect for the following reasons:

• 1. The debate was about the template in the public space NOT about the template in my own private space.
• 2. The majority consensus was move and not delete! So you had no right to delete unilaterally.

So please do kindly restore my userspace template, and then if you don't like it, you can always nominate it for deletion again! Thanks you! --λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ^[talk] 23:52, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I stand by my evaluation of the discussion. Numerically, the comments were divided evenly between keep/move (mostly move) and delete, but I found the arguments for deletion to have greater weight based on the established guidelines. (Note that although the numbers are not entirely irrelevant, interpretation of discussion consensus is not about majority votes in a particular discussion.) The arguments for the delete position were clearly contrasted to the idea of moving to user space, and the concerns they raised would apply regardless of the namespace. As I said, you are welcome to raise the issue at WP:DRV, and perhaps other uninvolved parties will agree with your conclusions over mine. But you are clearly not a neutral interpreter, and I have seen nothing in your comments to make me take your interpretation of the discussion over the one I stated previously. So, I'm sorry but I will not accommodate your request, although I appreciate the effort you have made to argue your position. --RL0919 (talk) 00:11, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

This is a vote, it's not about your evaluation of things! There were 7 people against deletion and how many for it? The votes were clearly not divided evenly! More people said it's a matter of personal freedom. I see your actions as very unfair, and I will certainly ask for re-evaluation of the whole matter. --λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ^[talk] 00:17, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

As a WP:TPS, I would point you toward WP:NOTVOTE, and encourage you, Lanternix, take it to WP:DRV if you don't agree. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:24, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Update, a DRV has been started here. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:28, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi, and welcome to Wikipedia! I couldn't help but notice you deleted the template called Possiblevandalism, this deletion was unwarranted as the discussion was not at a close and the evidence for a keep was not properly listened to. Also, the reasons stated for deletion were inadequate as they had been proven wrong. If a satisfactory resolution cannot be reached I will be forced to put this up for a deletion review. Remember, befere deletion consider "Is there a reason why I shoudn't delete this?", considering this before deleting anything will result in a much more enjoyable Wikipedia-maintaining experience. Thats all,
Mod MMG (User Page) Reply on my talkpage. Do NOT click this link 06:47, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome, although I have been here for a while! As the administrator who closed the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 March 1#Template:Possiblevandalism, I deleted the template based on the consensus of the participants. The discussion had run for a full seven days, with only one comment (yours) in the previous two days, so I believe the timing of the close was appropriate. Six editors expressed cogent reasons for deleting the template, and in several cases replied to your comments opposing deletion. The only editor to oppose its deletion was yourself, and I did not find that your arguments outweighed those calling for deletion. You are of course welcome to take the matter to deletion review, but I do not believe my actions in this instance will be in any way controversial. --RL0919 (talk) 15:09, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I understand, however I am now going to consider whether to take this to a deletion review or not. There is this admin who seems to follow and comment on all my edits for some reason, I will see what he/she thinks.
Mod MMG (User Page) Reply on my talkpage. Do NOT click this link 21:55, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Asking for deletion review is totally within your rights, and I would encourage you to seek the second opinion you mention from the other admin. I've made a few tough calls in closing deletion discussions (see the conversation immediately above this one, for example), where I would understand if another neutral party took a different view of the discussion. But honestly this was not one of the difficult cases. --RL0919 (talk) 22:15, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

The template is now basically orphaned, with the only remaining transclusions on userpages. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:28, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

'Tis deleted. Thanks! --RL0919 (talk) 04:32, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I've history merged the two articles, that should fix any attribution problems. The Holy Bible appears to be the more sensible title - if it was at The Holy Bible (album) then the actual Bible article would have to have a hatnote about a rock music album, which seems a bit bizarre. Very few people are going to type "The Holy Bible" into a search engine whilst looking for the article on the Bible. Black Kite 20:21, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Fine with me. I don't have any preference for what gets which name. The cut-and-paste move just had to be fixed. If The Holy Bible is going to be the album, there are some links that should be updated to Bible. The main use of the redirect appears to be links in articles where the bible has been mentioned or cited as a source as "The Holy Bible". --RL0919 (talk) 20:51, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Changed !vote. You can withdraw. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 02:48, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for the quick response. --RL0919 (talk) 02:52, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I have basically taken care of this one, but there is a technical reason why I don't think we should entirely delete it. See here. Basically, I think we should just remove the colored text in this template (which I have done), and leave it so it can be used with {{s-line}}. Hopefully this isn't a problem. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:02, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

There are several links to other articles within wikipedia in my article. Please stop adding the orphan status. 71.204.141.254 (talk) 21:33, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

"Orphan" means that other articles don't link to it. It has nothing to do with how many links it contains going to other articles. --RL0919 (talk) 21:36, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback. I will make adjustments. 71.204.141.254 (talk) 21:44, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi, you recently marked the March 6 entry as complete, but what was the result and where is the log.[1] Thanks. Eldumpo (talk) 21:16, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

The SFD log page for March 6 is Wikipedia:Stub_types_for_deletion/Log/2010/March/6, and the result is explained there. Basically the category was renamed. Let me know if you want any more detailed explanation. --RL0919 (talk) 21:52, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for response. I couldn't see any link to that from the stub deletion page, but anyway you've pointed it out now, and I see the change has been made. How do I go about getting the other stub categories changed that I refer to in the text, preferably without manually posting each one?

You could do a single submission at WP:SFD to cover renaming of all the relevant categories. They would need to be listed and tagged, but it could be done in one discussion with one explanation, and the closing admin would change them all together (assuming a positive conclusion, of course). --RL0919 (talk) 00:16, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I notice you deleted {{bv}}, the blatant vandalism warning template. I've been using this quite regularly for years when appropriate. If this has been superceeded, can you reccomend what should be used instead, and any reason not to redirect to what is now prefered? Thanks much! Cheers, -- Infrogmation (talk) 23:49, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

The most commonly used today are the "Uw-vandalism" series, starting with {{Uw-vandalism1}}. The closest in spirit to the deleted template is probably {{Uw-vandalism4im}}. That said, nothing requires you to use a template to warn vandals, or to stop using the language of the deleted template. One of the TFD participants (User:Connormah) said they had made a user-space copy of the deleted content, which I presume they will continue to use instead of the still-templated versions. --RL0919 (talk) 00:03, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks much. I have turned it into a redirect. I may not be the only person who uses this on occasion not aware that it would suddenly be gone. Thanks again. Cheers, Infrogmation (talk) 00:17, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Can you give me a pointer to this discussion? Your delete uses G8 as a reason, and when I search the TFD archive I get no result.—Kww(talk) 17:12, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

It was a redirect to Uw-bv. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:20, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Please take note of this discussion. Radiopathy •talk• 02:01, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Please see here (permalink) I believe that Radiopathy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is hounding me and has involved your talk page. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:35, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit-warring The back and forth edits have stopped on my end and I already posted on a WikiProject for outside comment. If you think an RfC is necessary, I'll do it, but as far as I can tell, a consensus was already reached. Please post on my talk if you think that RfC is the best option. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:28, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I think both you and Rafablu88 are a bit quick in declaring consensus for your preferred version. The discussion does seem slightly tilted in your favor (in my reading of the discussion, it looks like two other editors supported your view, and one supported Rafablu88), but it would be better if someone less invested in the result made the assessment. --RL0919 (talk) 03:32, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I will remember to use MfD for userboxes from now on. I failed to read the blurb on the TfD page after another editor pointed me there from the related CfD... sorry about that. Cheers --Jubilee♫clipman 00:16, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

If you want to help merging any of the missing links, see Template talk:Weather, thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 16:00, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Sure. I'll give it a run later when I'm on a bigger monitor for side-by-side comparison. --RL0919 (talk) 17:09, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

For starters, I wouldn't have reopened the debate. For second, could you fix it so that Namiba's and Alazirin's votes show up as no vote and keep, respectively, in the AFD stats, rather than delete and no vote as it's listed now? Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 21:46, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I believe the continued dispute between "keep" and "delete" in the discussion since re-opening shows that re-opening it was clearly the right thing to do. As to refactoring comments for the benefit of the AFD stats, I'm not inclined to do that since an AFD is not a vote, and the discussion is not so long or complicated that the closing admin won't be able to see that those editors changed their positions. (If I were closing the discussion, which I don't intend to do, I would consider both of their latest comments to be "keep".) However, feel free to ask those editors to clarify their own comments if you think they aren't clear enough. --RL0919 (talk) 22:03, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

It's looking like the debate will end in no consensus Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 22:27, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

• Template:User dislikes semitic one god religions (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:User dislikes monotheistic religions (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:User dislikes institutional religions (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This page was nominated for deletion on 21:30, 31 March 2010. The result of the discussion was delete.

--NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 01:11, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

On April 8, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Wauconda, Washington, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 12:03, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

How is it "no consensus" when only the original author is arguing for keep, and all other comments are for deletion or removal from the template namespace? I'm curious to why you closed it that way. Thanks — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 21:22, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

My assessment is that there is a significant unresolved discussion about the best way to deal with the issues raised during the TFD. The "per nom" comments didn't address the core of that discussion, so I largely discounted them. If there were a clear policy or well-established TFD precedent favoring one side or the other, I would have closed in favor of that, but I don't see that in this case. I could have relisted the TFD, but the thread you opened at WT:WPFT seemed like a better venue for the discussion to continue. If that discussion reaches a consensus that clearly disfavors this template, I don't think you would have much trouble renominating it and getting a clean "delete". Or perhaps that discussion will demonstrate a good use for the template and you won't want to renominate it. But either way, I don't see a clear resolution yet, hence the "no consensus" close. --RL0919 (talk) 21:54, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thanks, good rationale! — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 22:57, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

You made this comment on the Feedback page. It's a known issue, see ticket in the red box. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 22:29, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

No please dont delete it i am working on a main page. Can you give me a review and see if its accepted as notable, Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaymann220 (talk • contribs) 23:40, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't following the developments around the article closely last week, so I noticed your peer review only today. Let me just say that your comments are very much appreciated. Thank you for your effort! GregorB (talk) 19:36, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Glad I could help. If you want even more feedback, you might want to reply to my PR comments and mention that you would like additional opinions. I did that in a PR I have open, and got comments from two additional reviewers shortly thereafter. --RL0919 (talk) 20:12, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for creating Book:Ayn Rand. However, as of now, no one knows it exists, so it would be a good idea to go on relevant Ayn Rand-related pages (article and categories) and add {{Wikipedia-Books|Ayn Rand}} in the See also or External links sections. This way, other people will be able to read this book. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 08:19, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Good point. Using a slightly different approach from what you suggested, I just added a link for it in Template:Ayn Rand, a navbox that is included in more than 40 articles. That should de-orphan it quite nicely. I'll also look for other pages (such as categories) where the template you suggested can be added. Thanks for pointing out the issue. --RL0919 (talk) 14:18, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

That works too. It's possible that the navbox is missing from pages it should be on, so you might want to check on that. And if the navbox is overkill, the {{Wikipedia-Books}} template might be appropriate. Anyway, I'll leave it into your hands. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:35, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the navbox is transcluded where it needs to be. If you are wondering why "What Links Here" for the book isn't showing the links yet, when links are added to an already-transcluded template, it can take a few days for the job queue to update all the backlink information. --RL0919 (talk) 18:05, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Nah, I know that. I'm just saying navboxs have a way of not being on articles you'd think they'd be on (from experience). Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:26, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

As you can see the first request was destroyed by a user making all sorts of insane accusations and personal attacks and now Physchim62 is trying to make this request also unpleasant with accusations of vote stacking, trolling and god knows what. He is also accusing you personally of being disruptive. I want to ask you to remove his personal attacks from the discussion since they make it unappealing to participate in and to warn the user regarding future conduct of this sort. Thank you.--Icelandic Viking POWER (talk) 20:34, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Icelandic Viking POWER (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a single-purpose account which has already been blocked for disruption of the talkpage in question, as you can check from the links. Physchim62 (talk) 20:38, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Icelandic_debt_repayment_referendum,_2010#Requested_move_3. The proposed name has now been rejected twice, which much disruption in both discussions, and now you are forcing honest-minded editors to go in there again? Did you read the whole of the talk page before you made your decision, or just the last straw poll? Physchim62 (talk) 20:35, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

You are the one being disruptive and you have no business calling nobody a troll. Given all of your uncivil attitude in connection to these requests I question if you are indeed an honest-minded editor.--Icelandic Viking POWER (talk) 20:38, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

The new RM has been (IMHO correctly) closed under WP:SNOW as "no consensus", so no further action is required. Physchim62 (talk) 20:51, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Iceland

Before I go interposing myself into an edit war again, in your opinion is this removal[2] justified? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:38, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

As a general rule, editors having a dispute should refrain from editing one another's talk page comments, unless the edit is totally non-controversial, such as fixing obvious markup errors. If editor A thinks editor B is making personal attacks, they should point that out to a neutral party for action rather than removing the comments themselves. --RL0919 (talk) 20:00, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I see and when I did so the neutral party simply couldn't care less. Again you have this before your eyes and what have you had to say about it so far? The above. Are repeated trolling accusations here on wikipedia acceptable behavior?--Icelandic Viking POWER (talk) 20:07, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

So, what's the best course of action? I'm thinking that the user who made those comments should decide whether to re-post them. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:28, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I stand by my comments. In no way can IVP's editing be described as "constructive", quite the reverse. He or she should simply be banned, as have said for a long time. I have no problem with those editors who comment on the talk page in good faith, as I hope my edit makes clear. Physchim62 (talk) 22:55, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Again I will speak to the best general ways to handle such situations, which I see no reason to vary from in this case:

1. When an editor in good standing (not a drive-by vandal or previously banned editor) posts a comment in an article talk page dispute, other parties to the dispute should leave it alone unless there is a clear, non-controversial fix that is needed. Disputants removing one another's comments from the talk page is not helpful.
2. If the comment really does need to be changed/removed due to a policy violation (legal threats, revelation of private information, etc.), it is best for a neutral party to do this. There are plenty of places the parties to the dispute can go to find someone to help with this.
3. If X posts, Y removes and Z reverts Y, then the situation is back to where it was when X first posted, so Z hasn't done anything wrong (assuming Y is a party to the dispute and not a neutral party acting under item 2 above).
4. If you go to a neutral party to ask for a comment to be removed or an editor to be warned, and they don't want to do it, the odds are that you are over-reacting in the first place. Try to put the offending comment out of mind and return the discussion to how to improve the article.
5. The best way to deal with accusations by one's opposition is to rise above them. If someone accuses you of doing something that you didn't do, either ignore it or calmly explain that it isn't true. If it is true, then either calmly explain why you think it isn't a problem, or if you realize that you've done something wrong, apologize.
6. The most productive discussion for an article talk page is one that focuses on the best outcome for the article, and says as little as possible about the personal behavior of editors.

In short, don't edit one another's comments, and please do try to make the discussion less personal if you possibly can, even if that means ignoring rude comments by the other guy. I realize that this isn't always easy advice to follow, and I'm sure I've failed on this account any number of times myself, but it is still the best advice. (Note: If anyone has the urge to respond to my comments by posting further accusations against other editors or attempts to justify past accusations, you should think twice before hitting the Save button, because in that case you are clearly missing the point.) --RL0919 (talk) 17:26, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

This is now failing to pass any sort of basic test by common sense, in my view. Despite the history, User:Jclemens now claims WP:BLP is so clearly inapplicable that "Calling "BLP!" in a dispute that clearly doesn't qualify is disruptive editing" can be justified as a comment, despite all discussion. The 2008 book by Picknett and Prince which is the only serious reference for the disputed fact is by a team whose works in 2007 included The Turin Shroud: How Da Vinci Fooled History and The Templar Revelation: Secret Guardians of the True Identity of Christ; yet we seem not to be able to discuss at all whether it is factually reliable rather than a recycling of other people's ramblings. I'd be grateful if you had some idea what next, since that appears to me to be someone deeply entrenched and committed to the theory that a removal would be "censorship". Charles Matthews (talk) 18:32, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Just to let you know that this template has returned under a new name. It has been nominated for deletion, but I think that speedy is appropiated. Greetings! --LoЯd ۞pεth 02:29, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Template: Mureş County has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you.--Rokarudi--Rokarudi 13:46, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Template: Tributaries of Mureş River (Romanian and Hungarian names) has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you.--Rokarudi--Rokarudi 13:46, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

RTFM. BEFORE DRV talk to the closing admin.

Suggesting that the template should be deleted while this discussion is ongoing is ludicrous.

What has precedent got to do with it? We are an encyclopaedia, not a legal system.

Rich Farmbrough, 21:46, 9 May 2010 (UTC).

One could just as well say that it is "ludicrous" to create a brand new tag, put it on a page for which the deletion discussion has been closed, and expect that this will suspend the deletion process indefinitely while there is not any discussion about it occurring. You had a discussion with Coren, in which he showed no sign of reversing his close. I saw no indication that further discussion was ongoing. You were actively editing during the intervening days, so it is not as if I had reason to think you were away and would be getting back to Coren upon your return. I let the tag sit for three days of this non-discussion, until an editor inquired about it. Since anyone familiar with "TFM" would realize that this brand new tag had no precedent (a dictionary will provide the non-legal meaning of the term) in the usual process, and discussion with the closing admin had already occurred, I removed it and noted the appropriate next step. --RL0919 (talk) 23:20, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I have started a discussion for changing CGNDB into a redirect here. Thanks for your input in this matter. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 16:37, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I can't remember the context (probably something to do with a list of species template), but I recall a discussion about if it were possible to transclude only part of an article. I had not seen this done until today, but check out List of Smallville episodes. The individual season episode lists are being transcluded from each individual season page, with the <onlyinclude>...</onlyinclude> tag used to isolate the section to be included. What is even more interesting is how the episode summary part is not transcluded. In any event, I thought you would find this interesting if you hadn't seen it before. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:37, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

It was related to a species list (some type of insect, but I don't recall the specifics either). I did find out about the "onlyinclude" option sometime later. What would be really nice is if the leads of sub-articles could be transcluded into the parent articles, so that the summary section in the parent was always in synch with the main article content. But unfortunately there are a bunch of problems with that the way leads are currently written. --RL0919 (talk) 22:31, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

• Hi RL! I noticed that you removed that template [3]. If so, why are the Arabic Wikipedians allowed to have explicitly anti-Egyptian Wikipedia template (it translates as“This user opposes Egyptian Wikipedia project”), just because they believe that Arabic language is the most eloquent & sacred language in existence? All of these people included the template in their pages. Why do some people are against our primitive right to write in our own language? --Mahmudmasri (talk) 01:27, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I deleted that template as the outcome of a discussion based on the policies of English Wikipedia. I don't participate in the Arabic Wikipedia (nor would I be much good if I did, not knowing Arabic), so I can't help you with anything going on there. I assume they have some sort of similar process for discussing and deleting templates, so perhaps you could raise the issue there? --RL0919 (talk) 02:28, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for your quick reply. I made a comment, hopelessly, asking them to remove the racist template, waiting for their reply. --Mahmudmasri (talk) 02:57, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi. You deleted template {{rfd2/helper}} after Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 May 3#Template:Rfd2/helper, but it seems to be still called by {{rfd2m}} - for an example see the second item in this RfD. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 17:45, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I restored it for now, and will sort out the problem. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:45, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I moved it to {{rfd2m/helper}}, but per the changes to {{rfd2}}, this could probably be replaced in the same way. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:52, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of that. I've been on WP only sporadically this week, so it could have been a few days otherwise. --RL0919 (talk) 20:22, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm asking the people in the Consensus? section of the "Populated places" discussion about a key point that has created some division in this giant nomination. When you were reaching this consensus, did you think "Cities and towns" categories (not "Cities, towns, and villages") should have been part of the changes? If you have an opinion on this, please comment at the nomination.--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:57, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Where did I "create a false quote"? All I intended to do was rearrange the text to reflect the section divisions. – Smyth\^talk 22:29, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

My edit summary was poorly worded. More correctly I should have said "misleading attribution". A specific quote from Den Uyl and Rasmussen ("literary, hyperbolic and emotional") ended up being attributed to a collective group of articles published in The Personalist. I also don't think Jack Wheeler's comment fits well where you put it, but there isn't really a great spot for it until a subsection on later reception is created (as has been recently discussed on the talk page). So looking at it more closely, I don't really object to most of what you were doing, and I probably could have fixed the attribution problem without a full revert. Sorry about that. --RL0919 (talk) 22:50, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for explaining. – Smyth\^talk 22:53, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

The fact that you personally think this "controversial" comment should not appear is not enough to warrant it not being included. We should include it in a criticism section regarding her contradictory remarks on racism —Preceding unsigned comment added by Corrector555 (talk • contribs) 23:49, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

My position follows the Wikipedia policies I referred you to before. If you want to ignore them, that is your choice, but don't expect to have a happy or successful editing experience that way. You are not the first person to discover The Truth about a subject, which simply must be included in a Wikipedia article, and would be if it weren't for the dastardly forces of Evil that want to suppress The Truth. You can pursue a crusade to insert your own preferred criticisms of Rand into the article (and almost certainly fail), or you can look for reliable secondary sources and use them to help build an accurate and neutral article about her. The latter is much more productive for everyone, but it is only possible if you are able to put aside personal crusades. --RL0919 (talk) 00:29, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Let me know what you think of my latest entry. I'm not sure what I'm doing wrong here, especially since I cite Rand directly and now have a secondary source. Corrector555 (talk) 14:09, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I just posted about it on the article talk page. If you approach this from the perspective of trying to find a way to justify inserting this particular material into the article, I think you will continue to be frustrated. There are several published biographies of Rand, several books about her ideas, and numerous published essays and opinion pieces. I have some degree of familiarity with this literature, and it simply does not give any significant attention to her views on Arabs. Occasionally her support for Israel is briefly mentioned, but not her opinion of Arabs. The Ayn Rand Institute has quoted the Q&A you are so hot to get into the article, but one op-ed source is a drop in the bucket. I can provide sources talking about Rand's opinion of long dresses (she disliked them) and the music of Rachmaninoff (she liked it). That doesn't mean the article should have sections for each of these opinions. There are numerous forums where you could post at length about any opinion she had and your criticisms of it. But not every opinion of hers or every criticism thereof is going to belong in the Wikipedia article about her. --RL0919 (talk) 14:30, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

You previously commented on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Marknutley/The Gore Effect (2nd nomination). A new version of the article has been created in article space at The Gore Effect and has been nominated for deletion. If you have any views on this, please feel free to comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Gore Effect. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:10, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Please notice this reverted contribution, and this talk page. Cheers, --94.230.82.197 (talk) 07:56, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, "major philosopher" is not a well-defined designation, but it seems unlikely that Rand should be mentioned in the top-level article on Philosophy, if we are going to follow the normal WP criteria involving reliable secondary sources. She simply isn't widely recognized as an important philosopher in the way that Wittgenstein or Quine are. Her significance in philosophy has grown over time, so perhaps that will change, but article content shouldn't attempt to project future opinion. --RL0919 (talk) 18:59, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

User:HeinzDoofenshmirtz insists in removing deletion notices from templates, as shown in this edit. What can be done in this case? --LoЯd ۞pεth 18:57, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I had already noticed this and restored the removed notices, and left the editor a message about it (subsequently removed when they blanked their user talk page). I also found it necessary to salt several template names that they keep recreating after multiple deletions. If this sort of behavior continues, then the likely end result would be for this editor to be blocked. But for now the TFD notices are back and the template recreations have stopped, so I intend to take a "wait and see" approach in the hope that this editor will change their approach. --RL0919 (talk) 02:45, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I just wanted to let you know that I agree or am ok with nearly all of your revisions or tweaks of my edits, and believe that through our recent collaboration (me adding, you tweaking or removing) the article is stronger as a result. I send this because I know how it is to adjust others edits in mass, and not know what that other person is thinking. Have a good day.   Redthoreau -- (talk) 17:29, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know your thinking. I have some concerns about other material you've added that I haven't gotten around to adjusting yet, partially due to other commitments and also because some things require a bit of research to sort out (for instance, whether a claim sourced from an opinion article is supported by more neutral sources, or does it represent a skewed POV). But assuming all the frequent editors are attempting to build a thorough and neutral article about Rand, we should be able to work through any disagreements. --RL0919 (talk) 20:28, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply to me on the talk page of VOBO. Yes, I would appreciate receiving a copy of the article "Timeline of the future" by e-mail. I really can't understand why people take it upon themselves to delete other people's harmless and useful articles. (The guy has an interest in Martin Heidegger, and apparently came across my name because I added a couple Wikilinks to the article on him the day before yesterday. How he got from that to requesting the deletion of an article I was responsible for on a completely different subject I have no idea.) By the way, the reason I recreated it was that I thought I had fixed the issues that a couple people had complained about. I will write a defense at Deletion Review as you suggest. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 13:21, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I've sent the wikicode via email. --RL0919 (talk) 14:04, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Eric Kvaalen (talk) 20:52, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Timeline of the future. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.

Hi, you discussed deletion of {{IPA_fonts}} recently here. Now these days I have discovered the usage of <span style="font-family: Charis SIL, Doulos SIL, DejaVu Sans;"> ... </span>. I used this <span> for producing the right glyphs in Safari, re {{IPA consonant chart}} and ({{Unicode chart Braille Patterns}}. Is the an alternative template to use this font-family? Clearly, {{IPA}} does not do the job. -DePiep (talk) 08:28, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I supported deletion of the template due to its long deprecation and lack of use, but if there is a specific need for it then it could potentially be recreated. However, I would first suggest taking up the Safari problem at Template talk:IPA. It seems better to fix the problem using that template than to create another one. --RL0919 (talk) 16:53, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Thx. -DePiep (talk) 09:27, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

The talk page of the Dany Saadia article was for some strange reason deleted twice as G8.[4] As I'd like to attempt improving the article, and as as there IS an article, might you please restore the talk page? Thank you. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:26, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. It is actually a bit helpful. Wondering though why a G8 was used. Was the article actually speedied a few times and restored? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:40, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

It appears that the article was speedied per A7, taking the talk page with it as a G8. Then the talk page alone was recreated with what was essentially a challenge to the speedy deletion, and that was deleted per G8 since there was no article to go with the talk page. However, the deleting admin from the previous speedy must have seen it, because he restored the article and put it to AFD instead (a very reasonable and considerate decision on his part). FWIW, if something like this comes up in the future you should probably direct the initial undeletion request to the admin who deleted the page, as there is some risk of controversy when one admin undoes the actions of another. In this case I think it should be OK, but still just to be safe you should go to the doer to ask for the undoing, unless there is some clear reason that won't work (e.g., if the admin who deleted the page has retired). --RL0919 (talk) 17:52, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough... and thank you. I am already feeling pretty good about my improvements so far. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:05, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Some editors pointed out that since this template was deleted, we should delete this one too. Any thoughts? Could we also get a temporary copy of the zionism template to look at? I did notice an edit warring editor was mentioned in the Zionism template deletion. We make up templates all the time on Wikipedia for related articles. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 20:26, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Per your request, I have temporarily restored the deleted "Controversies related to Israel and Zionism" template at User:RL0919/TempRestore. I will comment on the current TFD shortly. --RL0919 (talk) 13:36, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Notification of this discussion did not reach me in time. I find the deletion of this template by REDIRECTing it to {{Abbr}} to be unacceptable. This was a great and useful template despite any accessibility issues. Sometimes accessibility issues cause the loss of some really great, helpful tools, and Template:Tooltip was one of these. I went to the Deletion review page, and it directed me here to you to discuss this deletion before putting it up for review. What can be done to get you to reconsider the deletion, or at least reopen the discussion?
 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  11:53, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
PS. Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 February 26#Template:Tooltip

Well, redirection isn't quite the same as deletion. There is still a template that can be used to create tooltips: namely {{Abbr}}. One of the reasons {{Tooltip}} was redirected is that most of the discussion participants seemed to think that Abbr provided the same relevant functionality. Is it your belief that Abbr doesn't do something significant that Tooltip did? --RL0919 (talk) 21:29, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

NO, I was incorrect! There seems to be a bit of a lag when I mouseover a tooltipped sentence, but now that I have gone back to the Ben Franklin page and checked the quote in ref.# 59 (as of 13 Aug 2010), I see that the mouseover still works. So there is no actual functionality lost (other than the underlining, which is probably an improvement). Looks like a good decision on your part after all.

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  07:54, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Hey,

Sorry I missed the TfD on this. The rationale given was that the five-star system has been replaced with the UEFA Elite Stadia system. Unfortunately, it seems like template:UEFAEliteStadia was deleted as a redirect to the five-star template! I reckon we're best restoring both and then moving the five-star navbox to the Elite title. It's definitely a useful navbox topic. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 11:00, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

One of the comments (not contradicted by anyone during the discussion) was to the effect that the new highest level has too many stadiums in it to make a useful navbox. Whether that is true or not is something I lack the expertise to say, although it looks like there are almost 200 that meet the minimum seating requirement. I've userfied it to User:Thumperward/UEFAEliteStadia; you should probably talk to PeeJay2K3 (talk · contribs) about his concerns before putting it back to template space. --RL0919 (talk) 11:31, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Great, no worries. FWIW I'd have userfied it myself, but didn't want to go undeleting pages without at least pinging the admin who closed the deletion discussion. :) Exactly what constitutes an Elite Stadium is often discussed on WT:FOOTY, so I'll try to get a discussion going there on how to proceed. Cheers! Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 11:58, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

D'oh: there it is. I'll clean this up myself. My bad! Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 15:01, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi RL0919, I declined the speedy deletion request for this article as it is substantially better than the version that was brought to AfD two years ago. In addition, the claim to notability is stronger now, as he is said to be the co-founder and CEO of a notable company. Feel free to PROD the article or start another AfD for it. Cheers, Dabomb87 (talk) 15:21, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Sent to AFD since there don't seem to be any independent sources to establish notability for Warner personally, as opposed to the company. --RL0919 (talk) 15:26, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Could you please send a copy (or at least a list ;)) of the gallery to User:TeleComNasSprVen/Sandbox3? I'd like to see whether they are eligible for deletion as well. I forgot to put the MfD on my watchlist. My mistake. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 04:16, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I added a list of the images (excluding those already deleted) as requested. --RL0919 (talk) 11:27, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll see what I can do with them. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 20:47, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, that's already much better. However, what is still a mystery for someone like me is why these unnamed associates were so upset with a publication in this journal so much so that they pressured someone into apologizing for having done that. --Crusio (talk) 20:37, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

The pressuring by associates is actually Kinsella's supposition rather than a proven fact, but it is not an unreasonable supposition. Many people associated with the Ayn Rand Institute dislike JARS, and particularly its editor, Chris Matthew Sciabarra. Whether that background information can be supported with reliable sources, I'm not sure. I'll have to see what I can dig up. --RL0919 (talk) 23:26, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

• Actually, what I am wondering about more is why is it so scandalous to publish in this journal? Why did these putative associated get so upset about this? Is this a fringe journal or something like that? --Crusio (talk) 06:08, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

• PS: BTW, if this is "supposition", we may have to take BLP considerations into account here. WP should not repeat unproven allegations without very good reason. --Crusio (talk) 06:09, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

The BLP concern is worth thinking about. I don't know of any admission by Bernstein saying that he was pressured, or from anyone saying they pressured him or that they actually know of him being pressured. As to the why, it would be just as speculative of me to explain the motives behind any unobserved "pressure", so I will be BLP-friendly and not engage in it without sources. --RL0919 (talk) 11:17, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

• Well, in that case, I think the whole section should be removed, as it does not give info that is understandable for a general reader without more inside information. As far as I can see, this is just some internecine flap that does not have a place in an encyclopedia... --Crusio (talk) 11:29, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

That Bernstein published in the journal and then apologized for it and condemned the journal instead is confirmed in reliable sources, specifically the Chronicle piece that is cited in the article. The dubiously sourced portion is the idea that he was "pressured" into this apology. The most reliable source for that seems to be Kinsella's blog comment, which has the appearance of speculation (Bernstein was "apparently pestered", emphasis added). That seems to be the part that should be removed. --RL0919 (talk) 13:08, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I removed the blog-based portion and used the Chronicle as the source for the quote from Bernstein's apology, so eliminate any WP:BLP-offending speculation from Kinsella's blog post. --RL0919 (talk) 15:55, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Because you participated in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Hi878/Secret Page List, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Secret pages 2. Cunard (talk) 07:00, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm probably gonna open another drv on GNAA in a day or two, as the theories presented and used in your close are invalidated by the references, and after fixing the refs with necessary excerpts it'll be plain to see. riffic (talk) 15:38, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. As far as I am concerned, "No consensus" leaves the door open to re-opening the process whenever you think a consensus can be formed, although I would caution you that trying again so quickly could generate opposition based on "too soon" arguments, particularly since it will be the third DRV in September and the fourth since July. --RL0919 (talk) 15:52, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

eh, maybe I'll wait then, but I feel that a 'too soon' argument should carry zero weight towards a final decision. Watch this space. riffic (talk) 18:17, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't necessarily disagree with your view of "too soon" arguments when it comes to something that closed previously as no consensus, but I know from past experience that some take a different view. Since I probably wouldn't close a DRV on the same subject twice in a row, my take on the validity of such arguments doesn't mean much for the prospects of another attempt. --RL0919 (talk) 21:52, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I noticed that you deleted the article about K. Silem Mohammad on the strength of a remark by Chromancer that Mohammad appeared to be "a small-press no-name with big-city dreams." I refer you to the following article in the Wall Street Journal:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704912004575252223568314054.html#articleTabs%3Dcomments

Please also note that Mohammad's work was featured in a special issue of Poetry magazine, and has appeared in The Best American Poetry. Here's a link to the Flarf/Conceptual issue of Poetry:

http://www.poetryfoundation.org/poetrymagazine/toc.html?issue=2303

I should mention that it is neither here nor there to me whether you reinstate his page. I just wanted to register with someone responsible for this that Chromancer's remark was unfortunate.

Jordandaviscritic (talk) 12:37, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

This one comment was not the sole basis for the deletion. In addition to another "delete" comment (plus the nomination statement), there was the fact that the article was an unsourced biography of a living person that was at AFD for two weeks without any improvements. I will not restore the unsourced version directly to article space. But if you believe there are reliable sources that could be added, I would have no problem making a userspace copy for you to work on and move back into article space once sources have been added. --RL0919 (talk) 14:11, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for responding; I appreciate your offer to make the article available for editing, but as I've made it this long without signing on as an editor, I'd prefer to let the issue rest. I would still like clarity about what bright line test of importance or significance is being applied for biographies of living persons. Jordandaviscritic (talk) 15:26, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately there is not a "bright line", and in a large collaborative project like Wikipedia, people can and do disagree about what should be included. But the general requirements for inclusion are described at WP:Notability and WP:Notability (people). The most important element is that notability should be supported by reliable sources, preferably cited within the article itself. When dealing with living people, sources are especially important, because without sources it is hard to tell whether false claims are being made about a person who could be offended or harmed by the article. --RL0919 (talk) 02:45, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I wish to redirect Gay Nigger Association of America to Goatse Security. You were the sysop who closed the most recent DRV on the GNAA, so I figured that you're the one to ask. Specifically, I wish to move User:LiteralKa/Gay Nigger Association of America to "Gay Nigger Association of America" and then redirect the page to "Goatse Security". This would keep the page history in a single location, and it would make it easier for users to find and browse the history of the (hopefully) soon-to-be redirect. The actual working draft for the GNAA article is at User:Murdox/GNAA; User:LiteralKa/GNAA is more of an archive of the deleted version than a draft. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 18:13, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I am busy this afternoon, but I will review the situation and act by this evening (US Central Time), either to fulfill your request or post here explaining why I have not. --RL0919 (talk) 19:07, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

After due consideration, I do not think it would be appropriate for me to move the userspace draft to mainspace or otherwise restore the edit history of the article. To do so would be contrary to the previous deletion decision, and by my own summation in the DRV, there is no consensus to overturn that decision. However, the strongest arguments for deletion (and against re-creation) are focused on issues of sourcing and notability, which do not apply as strongly to redirects. Since the Goatse Security article includes sourced information associating that subject with the GNAA, and since another DRV just about creating a redirect would be a tremendous waste, I am willing to create the redirect. Hopefully the logic of that action will be generally accepted by other parties. But I'm certainly not going to wheel war over it; if the redirect is controversial, it will presumably end up at WP:RFD and/or back at DRV. --RL0919 (talk) 01:26, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I understand. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 01:44, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Template:Web presence has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. 68.35.13.81 (talk) 23:42, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Sophie ^(Talk) 20:46, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello:

What needs to be done in order to get the article for K. Silem Mohammad back online? Many in the poetry community are distressed about the deletion. K. Silem Mohammad is an essential figure in the Flarf poetry movement, and has had much success in his field. The complaints against the article seem to have been made by someone who is either uninformed, or has some sort of personal issue with Mohammad.

I understand that the deletion was partially due to the sources. What types of sources are needed in an article, and once we have these sources, how do we get the article back up?

Thank you for your time. K. Silem is a serious figure in the current poetry community, and this article was a nice source of information for those who were trying to learn more about current experimental poets. —Preceding unsigned comment added by StrazhevaFan (talk • contribs) 08:14, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I have posted a standard welcome message on your talk page that contains several links that should help explain what is needed. The most important items are that the article should be supported with reliable sources, and that all its content should follow the policy on biographies of living persons. This was the big problem with the article before: there simply were not appropriate sources provided. Sources serve both to prove that he is notable (which is a basic standard for having a Wikipedia article about someone), and when dealing with a living person, they help us avoid offending or defaming him with false statements. If you want to start by working from the text of the article that was deleted, I can make a copy for you, or you can start from scratch. --RL0919 (talk) 14:02, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your excellent editing of my post on the Fishwife. I realized that is was too long but was not sure what to delete.

I have been reading Ayn Rand for almost the last 50 years now but it is only in the past two years that I have fully come to understand her because I lacked her cultural frame of reference until now. Our current "Head of the State" filled that gap in my education. It is one thing to read about looters, it is quite another to live under one who doesn’t hide who and what he is. Now I can say I truly understand the character Ragnar Danneskjöld.

Last year I gave all of my children, their spouses and nieces and nephews copies of Atlas Shrugged to read and to my surprise many of them have been reading it very seriously and asking questions. This past weekend, my son-in-law asked me if the Fishwife was Ayn Rand. The Fishwife was such a minor character to which I had not paid to much attention until the question was asked. When I reread the passage, which included a description of the Fishwife, and conducted some online searched I realized he was correct.

Here is where you can verify online the quote I used:

The Passion of Ayn Rand (Paperback) by Barbara Branden http://www.amazon.com/Passion-Ayn-Rand-Barbara-Branden/dp/038524388X/

On page 212 of the Amazon searchable book Barbara Branden states that “The Fishwife is Ayn’s Hitchcock-like appearance in Atlas Shrugged.” Google Books has the same reference.

http://www.google.com/search?tbs=bks%3A1&tbo=1&q=The+Passion+of+Ayn+Rand&btnG=Search+Books#sclient=psy&hl=en&tbo=1&tbs=bks:1&q=%22The+Passion+of+Ayn+Rand%22+%E2%80%9CThe+Fishwife+is+Ayn%E2%80%99s+Hitchcock-like+appearance+in+Atlas+Shrugged.%E2%80%9D+&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=%22The+Passion+of+Ayn+Rand%22+%E2%80%9CThe+Fishwife+is+Ayn%E2%80%99s+Hitchcock-like+appearance+in+Atlas+Shrugged.%E2%80%9D+&gs_rfai=&pbx=1&fp=83b8bce8fc916933

Do you know if Ayn Rand ever expressed an interest in fishing? I have all of Ayn Rand’s writings of a CD (I hope it still works with Windows-7) and I am going to have to search it for any references to fishing. There are no real lakes in Ouray Colorado and the only fishing would be for trout in the streams which flow through the valley.

What is behind the metaphor of the Fishwife? Ayn Rand always had reason.

Michael Ronayne (talk) 13:36, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I recognized the quote from Branden, but it is helpful to have the page reference. As to Rand and fishing, I don't recall anything about a particular interest in fishing on her part. But a fishwife's main job is selling fish rather than catching them; it is the feminine equivalent of "fishmonger". I think it likely the reference was to the cultural reputation of fishwives, who were considered crass loudmouths, much as Rand herself was perceived by the literary and philosophical establishments in her day.

If the CD is the one that Phil Oliver used to sell, I'm afraid it probably won't work with Windows 7, but there's no harm in giving it a try. --RL0919 (talk) 15:18, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I'm an Italian user and don't know the deletion rules in en.wiki. If I understand well, it's you who deleted the above mentioned article and it is to you that people wanting to restore it should address. The fact is, that a colleague of mine (a "professore associato" of Italian literature in an Italian university) told me that he was disappointed by that deletion since he was looking for information about this author and could not find it. As a matter of fact, it seems that -pace Chromancer - this author is widely known as one of the most famous authors of Flarf poetry, and some works of his has even been translated into Italian (here a sample). So, as regards notability he fully complies with the requirement. Maybe the article was badly written and this is the reason for deletion, but if this is not the case, I think tou'd better restore it. Thank you. --Vermondo (talk) 16:53, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Please see my responses to previous inquiries here and here. I'm not going to restore an unsourced article about a living person to the main article space, but I am happy to provide a userspace copy of the article for anyone who wants to improve it by providing reliable independent sources that demonstrate notability. (Unfortunately, copies of his own works, translated or not, are not independent sources per the notability policy.) Let me know you are interested in doing this. --RL0919 (talk) 21:43, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. I think that my friend has some reliable sources and I'll ask him. If you put a copy in User:Vermondo/K. Silem Mohammad, I'll try to edit it in a more "regular" way... --Vermondo (talk) 19:02, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Restored and moved to the page you requested. --RL0919 (talk) 22:29, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Please note that there's a new discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/2010 ArbCom election voting procedure in which you may wish to comment. It is expected to close in about a week. You have received this message because you participated in a similar discussion (2009 AC2 RfC) last year.  Roger ^talk 05:47, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi RL0919 - can you flag Worlds of Exile and Illusion for deletion? I don't know how to do that. It is hardly notable since it is the second such omnibus issued and there is nothing to say about it. In fact the first omnibus doesn't even have a Wikipedia page. Thanks Npd2983 (talk) 23:02, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I've tagged the article for proposed deletion and notified the editor who first created the article. If no one objects (by removing the prod tag) within seven days, it will be deleted. If someone thinks it should be kept, then the deletion will have to be discussed at articles for deletion. --RL0919 (talk) 23:07, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

{{tb|Sadads}}

I don't believe that g4 covers this case, and I object to you closing that discussion when you were somewhat involved. I would request that you revert the close, but add your closing comment to the discussion as it obviously carries some weight. -- ۩ Mask 07:43, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Let me step back for a moment and explain why I did not leave a redirect in the first place. The consensus for keeping the content was clear; even the nomination statement suggested keeping it in another namespace. Multiple comments supported moving it, but most did not address the details that come with a move. So I had to implement the details as best I could. Since the genesis of the complaint was seeing the name appear as a subpage of AN in the search box, I implemented the move so that it addressed that issue. For example, no one said what name they wanted it moved to, but if I had moved it to another name that was still a subpage of WP:AN (e.g., WP:AN/ITSTILLSUCKS), that obviously would not have been consistent with addressing the concern that led people to recommend moving it in the first place. Similarly, leaving a redirect that would continue to appear in the search box would not have resolved the issue. So I moved it without redirect, to a name that was not a subpage of WP:AN, and explicitly noted this in the close.

With that as the background, let me address your specific concerns above: To recreate the redirect is to reverse an explicit aspect of a very recent discussion close, which is something you should take to the closing admin or to deletion review. Hence my deletion of it as a G4. Once deleted, closing the RFD discussion was pro forma. I am involved with the page solely as a result of my admin duties, so I don't think there is a WP:INVOLVED issue here.

All that said, based on the MFD discussion, I think it would be OK for the redirect to exist if it does not show up in the search box. I started a test this morning to see if the NOINDEX magic word will prevent the redirect from showing up there. I want to make sure the job queue has been worked through before I reach any conclusions, so it may be a day or so to finish the test. But if that works, I will recreate the redirect myself with the NOINDEX set, and hopefully all will be well. --RL0919 (talk) 20:18, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Just a factual note, i did not recreate any redirect. There was no redirect before, there was a page. The page was moved. I was quite fine with that until I noticed an ANI archive still linking to the redlink, and so CREATED (not recreated, there was never a redirect at that address) a redirect. I have no objections to the noindexing, and could care less whether it does or does not show up in the searchbox, so if your noindex works, then consider this resolved. However, leaving the original ANI discussion that lead to the pages creation out of context by not pointing to the page seems, well, dumb. I created (not recreated) the redirect to address that issue and considered it a compromise since moves were A.) not the largest block of opinions in the MfD and B.) some of them specifically mention having a redirect at that address. -- ۩ Mask 23:56, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

NOINDEX appears to work to keep the page name out of the search box suggestions, so I will recreate the page as a NOINDEXed redirect. To avoid any surprises, I will notify User:JohnBlackburne beforehand. I'm hoping he won't have an issue with this solution, but if he does, he could take it back to WP:RFD and it would not be appropriate for me to speedy close, because the recreation isn't the result of a community discussion. Just forewarning you of the possibility. --RL0919 (talk) 05:02, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

NOINDEX is something I was not aware of, but it sounds like a good solution: it addresses my concern of the page showing up in the search box, and the page already is no longer a subpage of WP:AN. So if it works then yes, go for it.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 08:13, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Created as discussed, and thanks to both of you for working towards a reasonable compromise on this. Let me know if the redirect produces any further issues. --RL0919 (talk) 12:35, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I accidentally clicked rollback on your edit to this page. I reverted my accidental rollback. Feinoha ^{Talk, My master} 20:21, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

No problem. I've done that before myself, on much higher profile pages than somebody's user talk! --RL0919 (talk) 20:22, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Gay Nigger Association of America. Since you had some involvement with the Gay Nigger Association of America redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). SunHwaKwonh (talk) 05:34, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

talk page

I was wondering if you could add the previous XfD/DRV links (oldxdfull templates) to the GNAA redirect talk page, to make them easier to read? 76.66.203.138 (talk) 07:42, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

are they supposed to look for votes like this [5] SunHwaKwonh (talk) 17:45, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

It took me a few minutes to figure out what you were asking about. I presume you mean the notifications that Michaeldsuarez posted here and here. Notifications about discussions are acceptable as long as the restrictions described in Wikipedia:Canvassing are met. The postings he has made so far seem to be limited and neutrally worded. Whether he has selected the audience based on their views is hard to tell with just two notifications. I will remind him of the Wikipedia:Canvassing requirements, but if those two are the only notifications he posts, I wouldn't make much of it. Usually problematic canvassing involves a larger number of recipients. --RL0919 (talk) 18:48, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. I wasn't planning on notifying other other users, and I wasn't colluding or rigging the discussion. The two users I notified have experience with past GNAA discussions, and I felt that it would be wrong to leave them out of the loop. Can you please explain the concept of consensus and !vote to SunHwaKwonh? Conflicts on Wikipedia are resolved through consensus, not voting. "Looking for votes," as SunHwaKwonh accuses me of, wouldn't do me any good. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 19:29, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

policy says you have to notify nonpartisan but you only notify 2 people and both votes say they agree with you and say nothing else. are you sure they understand what you say need explain to me? SunHwaKwonh (talk) 23:41, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I repeat: I'm not looking for votes, especially since this is a discussion, not a poll or ballot. I was simply looking to diversify the opinions presented in discussion. I can't predict the future; I was hoping for more than single-sentence responses from them. I was hoping that they would've present a view or alternative not yet explored in the discussion. Like I've stated before, those two have a lot of experience in GNAA discussions, and I believe that it would've been wrong to exclude experience from the discussion. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 01:11, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

so, you agree that what they said there doesnt matter? SunHwaKwonh (talk) 02:53, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

No, anyone and everyone are free to express their opinion. That's how Wikipedia works. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 03:12, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

all they said is they agree with you, if that matters then you were canvassing right? SunHwaKwonh (talk) 04:13, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Is it wrong for them to agree with me? Is it wrong for me to ask for a third opinion when necessary? They have the right to say that they agree with someone. Perhaps they felt that I said all that needed to be said. Although I wished that they had said more, simply saying they agree with my view is a valid position, since their !votes reaffirm my !vote and shows that my !vote isn't simply a fringe view shared by one person. I repeat yet again: I'm not canvassing; I'm not looking for votes. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 04:35, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Request – I believe that you originally left RL0919 your message because you intended to use him or her as a mediator in our dispute. I suggest that we wait for RL0919's response before continuing this discussion. We're not going to resolve this dispute on our own. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 04:51, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

what can a mediator do? im just saying that you dont make sense because you say its not canvassing but you must guess that they will vote keep since they did before, and because they didnt say anything else but say they agree with you then what they said doesnt contribute to the afd at all according to what you said about it not being a vote. it doesnt all make sense. SunHwaKwonh (talk) 05:13, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Can't you just accept the fact that us two alone can't convince each other? If we continue like this, we'll just be going around in circles without a resolution. This is why we need a mediator. This is why we need a third opinion. RL0919 is a sysop who has experience with dispute resolution and Wikipedia policies. Not using his wisdom in order to resolve this dispute would be a waste. I also explained how their !votes contributed to the discussion in a previous post, and I won't repeat it again. I'm done with repetition, and I hope you are as well. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 05:36, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

you dont explain how what you did isnt canvassing if what they said matters in the rfd. but ok please dont respond until rl does. SunHwaKwonh (talk) 05:39, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

The resolution of this is really quite simple: you should both disengage from this discussion. Obviously you aren't going to agree, and there is nothing productive about repetitive squabbling. SunHwaKwonh's concerns have been thoroughly exposed in the RFD, and responses have been made there as well. If the closing administrator believes they have merit, then the comments of people notified by Michaeldsuarez will be discounted. If not, then not. There is no need to discuss it further, either here or there. I would also strongly encourage you to disengage from one another in other locations, such as here, before your dispute escalates. --RL0919 (talk) 12:10, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Alright, but I hope you understand that I have the right to defend myself from accusations of vandalism. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 13:39, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the reason for my vote was "as per michael" because I am sick and tired of saying the same thing in every GNAA related discussion. LiteralKa (talk) 02:02, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Dear Sir,

I've seen that you have deleted the page of the Institute I work for: VINF (Virtual Institute of Nano Films). I don't understand why. The institute does exist. It's the organizer of the ECNF, a conference that took place in Belgium in March 2010 and that will have it's second edition in June 2012 in Ancona, Italy. The institute gathers experts in the field of nanofilms. Our latest member that joined the network is Solvay. You can check all of the info on our Website: www.vinf.eu You can also check our existence on the cordis database (European database for projects financed by the commission).

If you need more info, you can contact me ([email protected])

Kind regards,

Axelle van Harten —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.247.35.217 (talk) 11:56, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for coming to me with your concern. It is important to understand that the mere existence of an organization is not sufficient for it to have a Wikipedia article. The organization must be notable, as demonstrated by independent coverage of it in multiple reliable sources, such as news coverage or scholarly articles that discuss the organization. Please review the guidelines on this at Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). If there is substantial coverage of VINF that could be used to support an article, then the deletion can be reconsidered. --RL0919 (talk) 13:09, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:TFD#Characters templates 3. 134.253.26.6 (talk) 21:43, 29 November 2010 (UTC)