This is the 26th page of my talkpage archives, dated January 2007 onwards. Please do not edit this page. If you wish to leave a message, click here! :)
You deleted the article, Emma Graves Fitzsimmons even after the person who originally tagged it for speedy deletion acknowledged that it shoud be nominated for AfD instead.
If the assertion is controversial or there has been a previous AfD, the article should be nominated for AfD instead.
I had started an article on Julene Reed, and it was deleted before I could return to complete it. If you Google "Julene Reed," you will find that accomplishments justify inclusion in Wikipedia. Please advise. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Julener (talk • contribs) 16:42, 31 December 2006 (UTC).
Because of your excellent closure of the Esperanza MfD, as well as the outstanding calculation of the visible consensus seen, I award you with The Editor's Barnstar. Your fantastic services are appreciated! WaltCip 17:13, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Wow, cmae back from wikibreak for Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Esperanza :) Just a note to let you know I lifted the protection you put on that page, as "processing" is done. No objection to having it restored if it starts getting used out of order. — xaosfluxTalk 17:16, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Before I begin, let me make it clear that I agree with your closing decision on the MfD - I think it's probably the best option. However, I am interested in your view on the suitability of the XfD procedure as a whole for über-contentious nominations, like this one, since the decision is still left up to one single admin (although obviously they consider the debate on the page), since there are obviously often significant numbers of sysops arguing on both sides, many of whom probably feel that they have the upper hand in discussion. David Mestel(Talk) 17:39, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
True, although it still does have the problem of being closed by just one admin. David Mestel(Talk) 07:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi Mailer diablo,
I noticed your redirects. I thought the MfD vote was still ongoing till 5th January? Have I missed anything? Cheers, Asteriontalk 17:39, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
I've made admin coaching standalone; I think it's different enough from Adopt-a-user. Hope you don't have any problems. -Amarkovblahedits 17:54, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
That's a good idea, I'll take that into account! I think what you decided for Esperanza was absolutely great: you did a good job. Though, it sucks you got drafted! Let's hope you don't get shipped off to Iraq. ★MESSEDROCKER★ 18:47, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi there. Just wanted to leave a personal message, in addition to the plea I made on the talk page of the MfD. I genuinely am not interested in preserving a list of members of Esperanza, or a list of those who ran it. It is the general principal of open, accessible history that I want to see upheld here. I do hope you will consider undeleting those pages so that everyone can see the history. Thanks. Carcharoth 01:52, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. I don't want to write at great length here, as the best place to lay out the arguments is at the talk page of the MfD or at a deletion review. I've written more at the thread on the MfD talk page - it would be good if you could comment there. I've also noted that that another admin has deleted the pages you salted - you might want to talk to him and see what is going on there. Carcharoth 11:37, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes - I do wish to contest the deletion. The founder of it tried to get it contested - and was unable to. How do we move forward? And - Happy New Year! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sdickert (talk • contribs) 15:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC).
Thank you Diablo - what should I do now to ensure its survival?
I also wish to contest our deletion. The resubmitted article was substantially different than the original marked for deletion article and complies with Wiki policy for posting company information and was not spam as originally marked. Please tell me how we can proceed as well.
Hope you had a good new year.. thank you -
--Travelworm 18:37, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Over a year ago, you deleted Halton District School Board, a school district in Canada, which might then have been a nonsense article. Could you please check whether any earlier version of the article can be restored in order to serve serve as a useful starting point for a new article on the district? The school district's official site can be found at http://www.haltondsb.on.ca/ --Eastmain 21:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Contesting deletion of article "Radcliffe Pitches"[edit]
Hello!
I would like to ask you to restore the "Radcliffe Pitches" article. I looked up some information that indicated you (as a Wikipedia admin) can restore the page.
Is there a process by which we could determine if there is a better way to rewrite the article to make it a candidate for undeletion and prevent deletion in the future? I couldn't quite figure out why it was deleted in the first place.
Establishing notability/adding secondary sources for deleted Radcliffe Pitches article[edit]
Hi there,
I would like to contest the deletion but I'm sure the article needs revision. This was the first Wikipedia article I wrote and I'd like to do it better... How should I initiate this?
I noted the remarks of the anonymous Gsd97jks about the very short biography that I contributed as a link to one of my articles cited in the Wikipedia article on Dan Burros. This person's remark is: "Vanity page for non-notable guy who's written a few articles. See also Bryk, William. Gsd97jks".
While I've never claimed to be notable, I've published several hundred articles over the last decade as a columnist for New York Press and The New York Sun. As Wikipedia had asked for someone to write an article to flesh out the stub, "William Bryk," I did. If Wikipedia hadn't asked for someone to write such a thing, I wouldn't have bothered. I've never been a self-publicist. But I certainly wouldn't have done so if I had known I'd invite a cheap, condescending comment from a snide coward hiding behind a pen name.
Sincerely,
William Bryk —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 161.185.1.100 (talk) 17:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC).
Thank you for the consideration you gave to my RfA. To be chosen as an administrator requires a high level of confidence by a broad section of the community. Although I received a great deal of support, at this time I do not hold the level of confidence required, and the RfA did not pass. You were one of the oppose votes, and raised concerns. I am more than willing to discuss those concerns with you if you are interested. Please let me know. Sincerely, --BostonMAtalk 03:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
My compliments on the closing of the ESP Mfd! It was a very large, complex and meandering discussion, which you adeptly navigated...Well done my friend!--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 07:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Mailer, you've got balls and brains to match. Cheers! — Nearly Headless Nick 07:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
I thought you were going to spend some of your time at the slave labour camp. What are you doing on Wikipedia? Reply here — Nearly Headless Nick 09:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
5 day work week. - Mailer Diablo 09:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
about half a year ago, you deleted the Aigaion page that I had created. Reason for this was failing notability. During the last 6 months we have had lots of downloads and have experienced much interest in the system. I thus think Aigaion would pass the notability criterium and therefore ask you to consider undeletion of the Aigaion page. If you agree, could you please restore it to my personal userspace so that I can make some improvements on the article before replacing it in the main space?
Thanks for your kind assistance, I will be overhauling the article and place it online somewhere next week. Wietseb 20:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
List of FieldTurf installations on deletion review[edit]
An editor has asked for a deletion review of List of FieldTurf installations. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Lovelac7 09:25, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your support in my my RfA, which passed with a tally of 117/0/1. I hope that my conduct as an admin lives up to the somewhat flattering confidence the community has shown in me. Please don't hesitate to leave a message on my talk page should you need anything or want to discuss something with me. However, I will only vote you into office if your policies are better than certain others like George^W^W whose names I shall not mention due to a need to maintain neutrality. ;)--Nilfanion (talk) 16:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
You beat me to deleting Women's sports people. In fact, looking at the deletion log, it looks like you deleted the rest of the prodded candidates in one fell swoop. Do you have a program for doing this? Otherwise, I'd really be impressed with your typing skills :P . If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 21:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
(I'd normally add this to my previous message... but due to your Wikibreak, I'll just leave another note like this...)
Wow! Quite impressed at the speed you conducted those deletions... anyways, thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia! No response is required. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 03:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Full listing of pages deleted in umbrella nominations[edit]
Hi there. Would it be possible to have a full list of all the pages deleted as a result of the Esperanza MfD? Normally with umbrella nominations there is a record of all the pages deleted at the XfD page itself, but I don't think there was in this case. This case is complicated by the fact that several admins did the deletions. Trawling through the deletion log can also be a pain, unless you know of an easier way to do this. Carcharoth 13:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Hey, thanks for participating in my recent RFA. You were amongst a number of editors who remained neutral on the topic. The RFA did not succeed (69/26/11). I am extremely grateful that you took the time to advise me on to improve as a Wikipedian and I'd like to assure you that I'll do my level best to develop my skills here to a point where you may feel you could trust me with the mop.
I've been blown away by the level of interest taken in my RFA and appreciate the time and energy dedicated by all the editors who have contributed to it, support, oppose and neutral alike. I hope to bump into you again soon and look forward to serving you and Wikipedia in any way I can. Cheers! The Rambling Man 19:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC) (the non-admin, formerly known as Budgiekiller)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Wikipedia:Esperanza. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Ed¿Cómo estás?Reviews? 15:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your support in my not-so-recent RfA, which succeeded with a final tally of (97/4/4)! I've never been able to accept compliments gracefully, and the heavy support from this outstanding community left me at a complete loss for words -- so, a very belatedthank you for all of your kind words.
I have done and will continue to do the utmost to serve the community in this new capacity, wherever it may take me, and to set an example others might wish to follow in. With a little luck and a lot of advice, this may be enough. Maybe someday the enwiki admins of the future will look back and say, "Yeah, that guy was an admin." Hopefully then they don't start talking about the explosive ArbComm case I got tied into and oh what a drama that was, but we'll see, won't we?
Surely some of you have seen me in action by now; with that in mind, I openly invite and welcome any feedback here or here -- help me become the best editor and sysop I can be.
Well! I thought about whether you'd like to be bothered reading this, whenever you got the chance, and figured it might give you something to feel good about. Thanks for the trust you put in me, way back when, as late as this note is. I hope you do well in your current term of duty, and find whatever enjoyment is available to you. Regards, Luna Santin 12:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Mailer diablo, if me and User:Carcharoth came up with a list of pages that we'd probably like to review and potentially restore, as protected redirects with only the history available, would you be prepared to give it the once over and take it from there? Appreciate this mess is getting long and convoluted, but anything to put it to bed. I'm not interested in touching anything explicitly membership or governance related. Steve blockTalk 16:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure that's the final list, I'm still discussing that with User:Carcharoth. I think we are acting outside of the DRV, since no-one has a real clue what the DRV is asking. So are you happy to run your eye over it? Your response didn't quite make it clear. Steve blockTalk 20:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Jorge Castano. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Paulley 12:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Greetings, my user name is LordGothic69, and I have found that you have taken down my page for "Chaoticum". I believe that the article was rather unfairly removed, as you stated your reasoning based on a rule regarding the significance of the person, group, band, etc. There are multiple reasons why the article warrants "publication" on Wikipedia. First, there are a number of other websites, items, and/or projects that go under the name Chaoticum. There is a German art page, based around writing and cultural literature. There was a (fictional) psychotropic drug in a somewhat popular Australian show. There is also either a restaurant, or chain of restaurants, in Europe, called the "Chicken Chaoticum". Not to mention an online blogger by the name of Mare Chaoticum, as well as another user with the username Chaoticum on a number of gay sex sites, as well as another on German Ebay. While there is no need to differentiate Chaoticum the band from the individuals' usernames, it would be useful for our fans to know that we are not connected with the German literature project, or the restaurant chain. Second, we have a number of fans who like information on Chaoticum, both how it was founded, and its roster, as well as info on the current discography and videos. Third, I see no reason why Chaoticum does not deserve to be listed as much as any other modern or past band. You seeing us as "not of significance" does not make it so. We have a small but strong, and growing, following in the US, as well as Japan, Brazil, Germany, Austria, Sweden, Romania, Italy, and the UK. Our music has been in three compilations thus far, we have created a score for a short movie, we have almost ten music videos either finished or in production, as well as eight full-length albums completed, with seven more planned over the next two to three years. We have accomplished all of this since I first began in mid-2004, though most has occured within the past year-and-a-half. That alone speaks volumes to our listeners, as well as others who find us. I do not see how such accomplishments, though perhaps miniscule compared to the Beatles, would make us so insignificant that you would feel the need to not only take down our entry, but prevent us and others from creating it ever again. Personally, I am mildly offended, though I do trust that you acted in accordance with what you felt best fit policy. I wish to have this matter resolved, which I feel would be best accomplished by you unblocking the page so it might be created once more. If you feel that there were problems with the style in which the article was written, then please feel free to suggest edits to the page, or tell me how to make it better. But to just delete it outright, not to mention block it, is simply a stagnant course of action which seems to leave no further room for growth or acceptance. Finally, I will add that no less than five other information database websites copied the information directly off of Wikipedia to list as their own, one of which being About.com, a rather large and well-known site. This process usually occurs through scripts in the website which look for terms being regularly searched. If enough people are searching for Chaoticum to cause web-scripts to kick into gear, then that would seem to be of some significance, don't you think? I will try to follow your posting rules for Talk on this page, but don't know if I'll do it right. I would like a response as soon as possible, as I would like this matter resolved expeditiously. I have also posted on the Talk section of the gaping hole where the Chaoticum page once proudly stood, stating why I feel that its deletion was unjust, and making my case for such.
LordGothic69 03:03, 17 January 2007 (UTC) LordGothic69
Concerning the copyright issue, I am the holder of the copyright. I created Chaoticum, I created the Myspace page, I created the website www.chaoticum.com, not to mention the music. Thus, if anyone has a legal right to post that information, it is me. As for notability, I addressed this issue to you in my previous "Talk" post to your page. I really don't feel like typing again for another hour just to re-state something I have already said.
Example of where the information has been taken directly from Wikipedia for other sites' use:
Now, when fans search and Wikipedia comes up, it simply tells about how the article has been banned. It reflects badly upon my band for that to happen, especially when we have worked very hard to make a name for ourselves. I see no need to make any further appeals. You banned the site from being recreated, you should be able to un-ban it, or should know how to make it so. I wish to put my page back up where it belongs. Please do not make this process more difficult than it need be. I have followed the Wikipedia guidelines, and have even followed your own personal rules for your "Talk" page, I would simply like the same courtesy by having my page re-instated, so that Wikipedia can once more provide information for those seeking it. Thank you. - LordGothic69 21:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC)LordGothic69
Hi, Mailer diablo! Trialsanderrors has closed the Esperanza DRV with the following closing comment:
The consensus result of this discussion is that Mailer diablo's closure was proper and should be implemented. Most of the discussion seems to be about differing interpretations what the closure entailed, and how it was supposed to be implemented. The simplest way to resolve this, and it seems that this has finally happened, is always to ask the closing admin for clarification. So I hope the implementation proceeds civilly and collegially from now on, in the spirit that Esperanza tried to promote. ~ trialsanderrors 06:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
My question is the same I asked trialsanderrors: How do you plan on implementing the closure? Are a few admins going to go and undelete all of the pages? Or will all of you come together and discuss the situation? Please fill me in. --Ed¿Cómo estás?Reviews? 01:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Oh, it's no problem! Esperanza isn't much of a Wikipedia priority anymore (sadly...). BTW I think you should add some instructions regarding replies to your messages (like the one you just left me). Do I send a reply message here, or do I reply on my talk page???
The instructions are confusing...The instructions are vague...The instructions are incomplete!
*Out of frustration over Mailer diablo's cabalist and possibly martinet attitude, Ed hits himself in the head with a pole*
File:PeanutButterJellyStar.gifI award the Peanut Butter Jelly Star to Mailer Diablo for closing the Esperanza MfD, deciding to implement the decisions of the DRV, and for establishing a cabalist and possibly martinet list of instructions for leaving messages.--Ed¿Cómo estás?Reviews? 04:32, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Mailer diablo, you deleted[1]Heaven of Transnistria after it passed a deletion review[2]. The author of the page created it again on Wikipedia, this time in what he claims is "his" userspace. He now claims that it is a sandbox and refuses to delete it. He links to it from his main page. When it gets deleted, he immediately restores it.[3] Admin intervention is required here, please. He has been warned of the WP:USER infraction but refuses to budge. Delete this article (again) as per the results of the article's deletion review. It has no place in Wikipedia. This is a blatant breach of WP:USER. - Mauco 13:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Matt Norman. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Filmnews2007 06:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Was that all you could restore for that article? There is quite a bit missing. I have the information from the birthday article, but that was what they wanted to delete. I used that to merge with the birth article, but I never saved a copy of it. Is it possible to restore the entire List of United States Presidents by date of birth article? I also merged and redirect the height list with list of heights of United States presidential candidates. I thought the group agreed on both of these issues. I did something similar with the Presidential names, but I didn't redirect those. I thought it didn't make sense for three separate pages for names and when the deletion discussion came up I copied the info, did some editing and added it to List of United States Presidential nicknames. I'm guessing the names articles will be deleted so I won't redirect them to that article right now. All four pages should be together for them to make sense to keep in my opinion. I found out later the discussions are supposed to take 5 days. I was trying to be more cautious with the Presidential names lists. I can see where many see it as useless, especially the part where they show a list of how many presidents name started with each letter of the alphabet. I deleted that portion when I merged the articles with the nickname list. I also edited the template by combining all four subject onto one link. I'm more concerned with the "birth" list because it wasn't on the delete list as the "birthday" list. When I merged and redirected it and left an explaination, I thought it was safe. Oops. Jjmillerhistorian 08:19, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Sure, I guess. The List of United States Presidents by date of birth was not supposed to be deleted. It was the "birthday" list which was to be deleted. This may make some people mad since there was a lot of work done on it. Since the articles coincide some of us agreed to merge the articles. Since I redirected it, it seems to have caused a problem. If you could find a copy that would be great. Thanks Jjmillerhistorian 13:54, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for restoring the article List of United States Presidents by date of birth to the way it was. I guess it sounded confusing by the similarity in the name. That is one reason I thought it should be merged. Just like the two height articles should be merged (which I did and redirected) and the 4 presidential names articles should be merged (which I did without redirecting). I will try to avoid redirecting articles up for deletion from now on. Jjmillerhistorian 14:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your support on my RfA, which closed favorably this morning. I appreciate the confidence the community has placed in me and am looking forward to my new responsibilities. Please let me know if ever you have any comments or suggestions, especially as I am learning how to use the tools. Best regards, Newyorkbrad 18:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
