Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:42, 25 July 2010

Archives

August 2006 - January 2007 February 2007 - July 2007 August 2007 - January 2008 February 2008 - July 2008 August 2008 - January 2009

Pity the Fool

Dear Vobiscum

I put up a page called 'Pity the Fool' about 3 to 4 months back, the admins requested the page for speedy deletion because the page had no evidence that the band is notable according to the criteria at Misplaced Pages:Notability (music). Please see my recent comment, I had to wait for a new Ptf song to be released and now it is on the charts, please can you assist me in getting the page up again. Thank you

Kind regards Daniel Raubenheimer Danielptf (talk) 20:42, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Tom.mevlie is back

Hi, I believe a user that had been blocked previously for operating sockpuppet accounts is back:

User:Will.M.Thompson, is a member of WikiProject Novels and WikiProject Led Zeppelin. He states on his user page "I am essentially a trouble maker, which is what I do, I cause trouble, and through no fault of my own generally. I have the beautiful blessing of always being right, and this is something I stick to. Look around, I'm correct all of the time."

Another sockpuppet account belonging to Tom.mevlie called User:WilliamMThompson was blocked in April 2008. User:DangerTM, a banned sockpuppet of mevlie, is also a member of the the same wikiprojects as User:Will.M.Thompson. EastPerthRoyals (talk) 00:44, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's the same user, but there is no reason to block him now, he only uses 1 account and behaves well (as far as I know). Best wishes/ Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 01:23, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Robert Frost

Could this page be unprotected? I wanted to add some info about the special archival collection at our library. Thanks! Skyelass (talk) 21:15, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Sure, let's try unprotection and see how it goes. Best wishes/ Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 01:00, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Now you see why this page was protected. GroveGuy (talk) 19:03, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Um yea, I was the one who protected it almost a year ago. It's a good idea to try lifting the protection of certain articles every once in a while, but this one clearly still needs protection. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 01:14, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

B&O passenger trains

Hello, I see you've recently moved/renamed a number of these articles. While the rationale is understandable, please note that many pages/templates linked to the former names are now redirects. Per WP:MOVE, it is recommended practice to make all redirect pages that are indented in the list of links to redirect to the page you moved to. Regards,  JGHowes  20:46, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

You are absolutely right, and I'll do it once I have finished moving the last articles (still a small number left). That way I can do the link fixes more efficiently and avoid clogging the histories with several edits per article. Cheers/ Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 00:56, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Cool. By the way, there's also WP:TWP/MOS#Articles about named passenger train services style guide regarding the Trains Project's preferred article naming for passenger trains. All the best,  JGHowes  01:53, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Yea I discovered that one well after I started moving everything. I'm not sure if they ever discussed the disambiguation practice or if it's just Slambo's suggestion on how to do it. Here is the discussion that started the process, in case you haven't seen it already. Best wishes/ Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 09:46, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Manchester City F.C.

Hi; hope you won't mind too much, but I asked another admin to review the semi-protection on Manchester City F.C., which you placed there just over a year ago. It was at the request of a new user to Misplaced Pages, and I always like to try and make them welcome. I think removing the semi is worth a shot; I'll keep an eye on the article myself.

I realise it'll be a potential target, but then again, that's true of all the big footie teams. We can give it a shot, anyway.

Once again, apologies for not asking you first, but I noticed you'd not been active for a few weeks.

Best,  Chzz  ►  17:43, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

No problem, thanks for letting me know. It's (almost) always a good idea to try unprotection every once in a while. Cheers/ Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 07:18, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

IP block

Can I request a block on the following ip address: 89.165.66.70 that twice vandalised my user page today ] and ]? Thanks--AssegaiAli (talk) 22:11, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for not being able to respond sooner. Since my wikipedia time currently is very limited I suggest you contact an active admin if you should have more problems. You can request semi-protection of your user page at WP:RFPP and you can report repeated vandalism to WP:AIV. Best wishes/ Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 12:10, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Purity and danger

The article Purity and danger has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Nothing here that hadn't better been expressed in a sentence in the author's biography

While all contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. meco (talk) 16:11, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Charles Darwin

• 15:14, 23 October 2007 Pax:Vobiscum protected Charles Darwin ‎ (IP vandalism )

That was nearly two years ago. I'd like to review this to see if semiprotection is still necessary. Please see the discussion I started on Talk:Charles Darwin. --TS 10:55, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. I've left a reply on the talk page. Best wishes/ Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 16:33, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Pax:Vobiscum! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 2 of the articles that you created are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to insure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. if you were to bring these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 18 article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the list:

1. Nils Lindberg - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
2. David Ridgway (scholar) - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 21:33, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Manual of style

Hi Pax:Vobiscum! I have reverted your recent edits to the article Israel Defense Forces because it created serious formatting problems, broken links, and did not comply with Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style, which I strongly encourage you to review (especially WP:DASH). I hope you take this as constructive criticism and not an attack. Cheers, Ynhockey 01:59, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for letting me know and thanks for cleaning up my mess! I'll be sure to read up on the dashes. Best wishes/ Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 14:59, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for taking care of this. Could you also take a look at the same article in the user's subpage here. Given that it has another persons name it is a borderline attack, or otherwise perhaps deletable per wp:NOTMYSPACE. Thanks again.  7  08:42, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

No problem, I deleted the other one too. Have a good day! /Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 08:51, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!  7  08:59, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Oblivion Lost

Thanks Pax:Vobiscum Oblivion Lost (talk) 17:52, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Hans Hagen and Taco Hoekwater

Please undelete these articles; I would have contested the speedy if you hadn't been so speedy.--Oneiros (talk) 13:55, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi and thanks for stopping by. I maintain that none of those 2 articles suggest proper notability (and thus the verifiability of the information) to warrant articles on wikipedia. If you could point me to any reliable sources that suggest otherwise I'd be happy to undelete them. Also, feel free to use the deletion review process. Best wishes/ Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 15:26, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

They are both the authors of ConTeXt (the alternative to LaTeX) and LuaTeX (one of the currently developed succesors of TeX). Is that notability enough?--Oneiros (talk) 15:33, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

The crucial question is if there are any reliable sources (such as newspaper articles or something similar) that the articles can be based on. If the guys haven't been the subject of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" (read more here), then they are not notable in the wikipedia sense of the word. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 15:43, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

They have. Just to remind you: You speedily deleted articles without any prior discussion. This should be done only sparely. See you in the reviews.--Oneiros (talk) 15:46, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Btw: You misunderstand A7. It's not about notability.--Oneiros (talk) 16:26, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion the articles do not make "any credible claim of significance or importance" and are therefor eligible for speedy deletion under A7. You apparently disagree, and that's fine, that's what the deletion review process is for. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 17:16, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

At the start of this discussion you claimed missing notability. That's not what A7 is for. And you should really read WP:ATD.--Oneiros (talk) 14:12, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the importance criteria of A7 is a lower standard than notability and I've never claimed anything else. I still don't see their importance nor any sign of notability. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 15:01, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Deletion review for Hans Hagen

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Hans Hagen. 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. Oneiros (talk) 15:59, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Deletion review for Taco Hoekwater

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Taco Hoekwater. 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. Oneiros (talk) 15:59, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Deletion review for Till Tantau

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Till Tantau. 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. Oneiros (talk) 16:17, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Rich Shapero

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 Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Rich Shapero. 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) 01:11, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Article possibly recreated after speedy delete

I notice you A7 deleted Krohn and Moss. I believe the same author has just created Krohn and Moss Consumer Law Center (I noticed the new article because the author added promotional links to the article from Lemon Law and Lemon (automobile), which I removed). I do not know if any further action is required, and am leaving this purely FYI. Johnuniq (talk) 11:07, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 13:59, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

DRV possibly of interest to you

I've listed Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Rich Shapero, a discussion you contributed strongly to, at WP:DRV as I didn't think it was a valid close: see Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2010 May 15. Alzarian16 (talk) 10:55, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

How I Wonder What You Are

Hello,

On May 2 you speedy-deleted ' "how i wonder what You Are ' "how_i_wonder_what_You_Are&action=edit&redlink= as a duplicate topic for Shutter Island (film). The article was re-created and moved to How I Wonder What You Are. Judging from this article it looks unlikely that it is a duplicate of Shutter Island - one is a big-budget Hollywood movie, the other is an independent production from Sri Lanka with a different director and no Hollywood stars ;) I suspect you have been the victim of an inaccurate speedy tag placed on the original article.

The only reason this matters now is that one user has tried to use the previous deletion as a reason to delete the current incarnation which seems unfair since it was apparently done in error. Of course G4 should not be used for articles that were only speedy-deleted before (as opposed to having a deletion discussion) but there's always the chance that some admin might delete it without checking the details.

I hope this doesn't come across as a complaint about your actions, which I am sure were all done in trust and good faith, but would you consider placing a note on the article talk page to say that the previous deletion was in error?

Cheers, Thparkth (talk) 19:07, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi and thanks for stopping by. The article I deleted wasn't actually about "How I Wonder What You Are", it was a cut & paste copy of the Shutter Island article with some minor adjustments, so my deletion was (as far as I can see) correct. The recreated article is a totally different thing and should not be speedily deleted although its notability could be discussed. Cheers/ Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 11:00, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for the note, I've been appraised of the full history of the article now and I understand that your initial deletion was entirely correct. Cheers! Thparkth (talk) 11:05, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Muir Skate Longboard Shop (2nd nomination)

Hi, Pax:Vobiscum. Because you participated in Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2010 May 12#Muir Skate Longboard Shop, you may be interested in Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Muir Skate Longboard Shop (2nd nomination). Cunard (talk) 02:10, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Rich Shapero

Charlotte Centre Curling Club

Please immeidately delete File:Charlotte Curling Logo.jpg since it is no longer needed as you censored the article it was for.

Thank you for your attention, --WaxonWaxov (talk) 10:53, 24 May 2010 (UTC), who will forever be a Misplaced Pages Inclusionist

DELETION REVIEW: You cite notability as the reason for deletion. Did you review this piece that was cited in the original article that you deleted? ] This is the May, 2010 issue of the U.S. Curling News, the official newletter of the United States Curling Association. About 80% of page three of that newsletter, which is sent to every member of the above named associtaion, was dedicated to the topic. Let me say that another way: The National Governing Body of an Olympic Sport dedicated almost entire of it's final newsletter for the season to the Charlotte Centre Curling Club. That, in my opinion, makes notability. I would also argue that curling clubs in the US are unigue within their geographic regions. If a person wants to know about the sport of curling in Charlotte, then there is only one place to go. Thank you again for your attention.--WaxonWaxov (talk) 11:18, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi! The general opinion of the participants in the discussion was that the coverage was not enough to reach the level of coverage needed for an article on wikipedia. The job of the closing admin is not to impose his own view on things but to sum up and interpret the discussion (and make sure it's according to wikipedia policy). If you can find a few articles in mainstream newspapers that would change the situation. If you would like me to I can move the article to your userspace so you could work on it. Cheers/ Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 12:51, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, go ahead and move it to my userspace. Thanks for clarifying that you didn't look at the cites in the article.WaxonWaxov (talk) 04:26, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

It's now available at User:WaxonWaxov/Charlotte Centre Curling Club. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 06:42, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Yet Another Review Site

Hi, you just deleted the page for Yet Another Review Site. I was wondering if you read contest comments or replied to them before going ahead. I cited several examples of similar content that was still live and asked for advice on how to improve the article? Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daverage (talk • contribs) 14:45, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi! For a website to be the subject of an article on wikipedia there needs to be "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" (see WP:GNG). That has to do with wikipedia's policy of verifiability, which basically means that we need to have a neutral source where we can confirm the contents of an article. So if for example there are magazine articles that discuss the website that could be a start. Some of the articles you mentioned (Craig Harris (journalist) and Gamezebo) could probably be deleted because they don't seem to have the kind of sources we require. Cheers/ Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 15:17, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Revision to Sid Meier's Alien Crossfire and Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri articles

I noticed that you have revised either Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri or Sid Meier's Alien Crossfire.

I intend to revise those articles following the Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines. There are more details on the discussion pages of those articles. I'd be interested in any comments you have. It would be best if your comments were on the discussion pages of the two articles.

Thank you.

Vyeh (talk) 19:58, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Opera article moves

Hi there. Just a note to say that when you move opera articles to a new title, make sure that you change the link in the accompanying composer navigation templates, e.g. . Otherwise, it will produce a circular link. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 17:20, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Yup, you're right although I'm not quite sure what you mean with a circular link. It wasn't a double redirect, just s single (although I agree that even single redirects should be avoided in templates). Ciao/ Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 18:21, 12 June 2010 (UTC)