User talk:TheProject

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives:

• Archive 0: September 2004 – August 2006

Contents 1 Franz Ferdinand (disambiguation) 2 Speedy Deletion 3 Aerosmith Merge 4 Michael Scott Smith 5 "cleanup" 6 AWB Approval 7 Hutton Gibson 8 Go raibh maith agat! 9 Transwiki 10 Deleting Userpage 11 Argentine football 12 Transwiki log 13 Human Waste Project 14 User:Pierre Lachance 15 Jeronimo Cacau 16 JarlaxleArtemis 17 wikibooks now has import 18 Thank you

[edit] Franz Ferdinand (disambiguation)

Thanks for sorting this out. However, could the old Talk:Franz Ferdinand (disambiguation) be merged into Talk:Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria so discussion is preserved for future (and to avoid recreation). Also, FTR, it doesn't matter now but it may have been best to keep this page (due to the non-trivial page history) while redirecting it to Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria and/or including a notice on it asking people to reach consensus before recreation (both to avoid re-creation).

Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley _{talk contrib} 13:35, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't be too concerned about recreation; if it turns out to be a problem, the page can be protected as a deletedpage. theProject 02:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy Deletion

I applied the general deletion tag and the I remebered to give a reason but you deleted the page before I saved it.

[edit] Aerosmith Merge

Instead of just walking in and merging, please join the discussion. — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 02:29, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah, whoops, sorry about that. I guess that must be the main reason why the merge backlog is so big, because a lot of them are opposed. I will be more careful about that in the future. theProject 02:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Scott Smith

I noticed in the deletion log that you had speedied an article called Michael Scott Smith on August 11. Another article by that name has just popped up, so could you take a look and see if the content is the same as it was before? Regards, ... discospinster _talk 02:32, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

No, that's not the same article; however, it is about the same person, was created by the same user (the subject's brother), and now finds itself deleted as a collection of indiscriminate information. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. theProject 02:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "cleanup"

Heh, yes, I agree that copyediting is cleaning up. :) I created another category for just "copyediting" because Uwe Langer's articles often need a native English speaker's eye, and I distinguished this kind of cleanup to the more general kind. Cheers. --Fang Aili ^talk 14:21, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AWB Approval

You're an admin, and, as such, should already be approved. alphaChimp^(talk) 16:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hutton Gibson

I'm not sure why you keep on reverting Robert K S's edits to the article. I don't see anything unsourced in what he says. Andy Saunders 20:04, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

It would be very beneficial to both of you and the encyclopedia if you could sort out your differences on the article's talk page instead of participating in a revert war. theProject 20:31, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

No. No one is going to add their personal commentary to the Hutton Gibson article. No one is going to add original research to the article. Also, since it is a bio of a Living Person the three revert does not apply because the commentaries are potentially defamatory.--Getaway 00:21, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I also saw and I forgot to comment on it that you stated, incorrectly, that I was close to the 3RR limit. I just want to point out that was incorrect, not only because the FACT that the article is a bio about about a Living Person, but because I had only used two of my strikes. But you need to know that if the commentary starts to creep back in I will remove it again and again. The commentary is potentially defamatory and will not be tolerated.--Getaway 00:21, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

The issue at hand appears to be whether the fragment would actually be defamatory if untrue. Accusing someone of exaggeration does not appear to be a very strong defamation claim. As for having "only" used two strikes, that would be why I said you were "close" to the 3RR limit, and not at it. theProject 01:28, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

That's great! In this response, you admit that RobertKS: (1) adds personal commentary (which violates this policy: Wikipedia:No original research), (2) that is potentially defamatory (which violates this policy: Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons). However, in your opinion, even though it is personal commentary of a potentially defamatory character you do not believe that it "appear(s) to be a very strong defamation claim." You do not cite any court cases or legal opinions to support your personal opinion. I am just supposed to agree to your assessment without any support to back up your opinion on whether RobertKS has gone far enough to defame Hutton Gibson AND I am supposed to ignore the two other policies that he violates getting there. You don't seem concerned that RobertKS's commentary is original research (you ignore that policy violation) and you don't seem concerned that the commentary is potentially defamatory (you ignore that policy violation), you are only concerned that RobertKS probably did not, in your layman's legal opinion, that RobertKS did make a commentary and it is potentially defamatory, but he just did not go far enough for Hutton Gibson to win a legal suit. I am sorry, but I just do not buy the argument. You want me to ignore obvious Wikipedia policy violations (even though you are an admin) and leave in the article RobertKS's commentary because you do not believe that even though RobertKS potentially defamed Hutton Gibson, by calling him a liar, he (RobertKS) did not go far enough to lose a lawsuit AND you state this opinion off the top of your head without supporting documentation for that legal opinion. I don't think so. I will remove it ten/fifteen times a day if it continues to reappear. It is not up to you to decide whether a little defamation by a Wikiepdian is too much, not enough, or just right.--Getaway 14:42, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I hardly see how I admitted anything. In particular, I don't see what the problem is in writing a fact ("he claimed to have won X amount of dollars") and writing another relevant fact ("Y, which is less than X, is the record") which leads to the logical conclusion. It's like providing the fact that Jimmy Hoffa disappeared and concluding that he is presumed dead. At any rate, all I'm trying to do is get you two to discuss this on the talk page. Participating in a revert war doesn't help anything. If you'll kindly noticed, I haven't touched "your" article at all. theProject 15:09, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

You are attempting to change the subject. I was talking about RobertKS using the word "exaggerating." That is commentary. It is a violation of Wikipedia rules. That is what I have been talking about and I am not going to allow that commentary in the article. It is potentially defamatory because if we allow it in there then we are basically letting RobertKS call Hutton Gibson a "liar." That is not allowed and I will removed over and over again.--Getaway 15:30, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Not necessarily. The choice of words could be better, but it's not necessarily commentary. Anyways, the main gist of my point on your talk was that you ought to sort out your differences on the article's talk page, and here you've brought it to mine, when I barely have anything to do with the dispute. :-) theProject 17:04, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

No. You are dead wrong. You interjected yourself into the conversation. I did not bring it here. You went to my talk page. I am only responding to your comments, which were wrong. RobertKS made a comment that in his opinion Hutton Gibson "exaggerated." That is commentary. You have not given any reasoning on why it is not commentary. You just state things. You make large conclusionary statements, but you do not give any sources or reasoning for your opinions. I have given detailed analysis on why RobertKS is making a commentary on the comments of Hutton Gibson, which is not his place to do. I have been on the talk page several times. Once again, you came to my talk page, which I have pointed out several times is unwarranted. And you are just limited your commentary to getting RobertKS and I to talk on the talk page, but you have expressed your opinion several times that when RobertKS calls the comments of Hutton Gibson as an "exaggeration" then, in your opinion, it is not commentary, but of course you have not given any rationale for that conclusionary statement, you just repeat yourself--in the same manner that you gave a legal opinion on RobertKS's remarks without providing any real evidence for your opinion. So please, don't try to make the argument that I am somehow talking to you for no reason. You began this discussion and now you want it to end. Once again, if anyone uses the term "exaggeration" in the article then I will remove and regardless of what you state I will remove over and over again.--Getaway 17:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

The only thing I said was that "it would be very beneficial to both of you and the encyclopedia if you could sort out your differences on the article's talk page instead of participating in a revert war". What in that statement interjected myself into your conversation? I only said to discuss it on the talk page. All other content-related matter is none of my business. Sort it out yourselves. My opinion on the article from what I've read of it is that it needs much more cleanup than just a petty dispute over the word "exaggerate". Alright? theProject 17:29, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Once again, the fact that you believe that use of the word "exaggeration" is petty is your opinion only. However, it is not petty, but it a potentially defamatory commentary by a Wikipedian, Okay?--Getaway 18:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I did not say use of the word was petty. I said the dispute was petty, and I'd rather be left out of it. theProject 18:53, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Go raibh maith agat!

hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 15:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Transwiki

I have seen that you do a lot of work in the transwiki process, and I'd like to help, but I'm having trouble grasping it. Perhaps you could help out? Stubbleboy 21:44, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deleting Userpage

I like to have a neat and tidy userspace. I also apologise for typing this message into your userpage. I was not paying attention and mistook it for your talk page. I have since reverted the edit. Auriga M36 06:35, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Argentine football

I've discussed the issue with some other admins on IRC, and we concluded that third-tier professional football teams do meet notability; consequently, I have restored 9 de Julio de Rafaela. Just letting you know. DS 18:33, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. theProject 19:59, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Transwiki log

Hi, regarding your comments on my talk page - yeah, I noticed that the transwiki log, the wiktionary section, had a backlog reaching back into early 2005, so I went through and handled most of it and archived a lot of it off already. As I'm not an administrator and can't simply delete things myself, and since the prod patrol folks tend to pull prod tags off anything which they think might be remotely worth saving, I tend to end up turning lots of the useless dicdefs into redirects instead of having them deleted. Also, I've done the "soft redirect to wiktionary" thing on a number of them, those which had a wiktionary definition in place (in the wiktionary main space, not in its transwiki space). I personally prefer straight out deletion to redirection most of the time, so I'll leave the transwiki log to you for now and let you delete away. --Xyzzyplugh 13:49, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and - per the discussion on Template_talk:Copy_to_Wiktionary#Move_vs._copy and after asking Uncle G's opinion on it, I've renamed all the transwiki categories and templates. They're all now Copy to x instead of Move to x. Template:Copy to Wiktionary, Category:Copy to Wiktionary, etc. Your user page links to the old categories, you might want to change this (assuming you don't strongly disagree with the template/category renaming). It's been about a month since I moved the templates, by now I've gone around wikipedia fixing all the mentions of the old categories and templates, but as we don't redirect categories I've left the old ones in place to point people to the new categories.--Xyzzyplugh 14:08, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Human Waste Project

Don't want to get too upset about the A7 deletion. I was just wondering if you had looked at my argument on the article's talk page. The band meets several criteria of Wikipedia:Notability (music), so the speedy seems unjustified to me. In fact, the article had a significant number of other articles pointing to it, so more than a dozen red links just showed up in the main space. At the very least, the article deserved an AfD. Casey Abell 00:54, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply. I did have a look at the talk page reasoning (I admit I had deleted the page first before reading the talk, but I did take it into consideration). It seemed though the keep rationale was attempting to stretch itself quite seriously into the notability guidelines. (In particular, I've always felt the "members from other bands" clause has been among one of the weakest in the guideline.) As they are guidelines and not set in stone, I did exercise some discretion in pushing the delete button.

The standard administrative notice on deletions applies, of course: if you still believe the deletion to be in error, you can take it to deletion review. I won't be offended in the slightest if you do. Hope that addresses your concerns. theProject 03:25, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I must disagree that my keep rationale "stretched itself", quite seriously or otherwise, into the three notability guidelines I cited. In fact, the band easily meets all three of the guidelines—national touring, significant media coverage, and members of other bands—and I provided specific sourcing for every one of them. You haven't responded to my arguments at all, except to say that you think one of the guidelines is "weak". Fine, that's your personal opinion, unsupported by any objective argument. But the guidelines are there for a reason: to provide specific guidance not subject to the whims of a particular admin.

Again, I don't want to get too upset about the deletion. I've worked on hundreds of articles in piling up my 5,000+ edits. But if admins are simply going to ignore the notability guidelines, why have them at all? Let's be honest and just admit that deletion is nothing more than the passing whim of a particular admin. I'll consider taking the article to DRV, although it's a cumbersome and unpleasant process. But your deletion was unjustified based on clear and specific notability guidelines, which I've cited and supported, and which you've not provided any counter-argument against. The next time you begin many deletions, as you did with the 29 articles you deleted in less than an hour on October 7, please remember that you are eliminating the work of many contributors to the encyclopedia—not to mention creating many red links in other articles, including more than a dozen by this one deletion alone. Casey Abell 12:35, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

My interpretation of deletion has always been that admins are to determine what benefits Wikipedia by remaining on Wikipedia. Guidelines exist as, for me, a lowest criteria of inclusion, and as a more concrete way of thinking about "benefit of remaining". Obviously, this idea of deletion ruffles a few feathers, so don't too worry about getting upset. I've had a lot of people get much more nasty over similar circumstances. (I've also seen many admins get nasty for no reason.)

But admins are humans too, and we sometimes make mistakes. I might have here, of course. However, since the whole point of DRV is to take up possible mistakes by admins in deletion, I would advise you to direct your attention there (it's really not that bad of a process). I typically don't undo my deletions unless I've made some egregious error in process (e.g. I once deleted a duplicate article, which should have been merged instead), so I regret I will not be undeleting the page for now. theProject 15:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Pierre Lachance

Whoops, my bad. Missed that. Rsm99833 04:10, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jeronimo Cacau

Please delete Jeronimo Cacau. Nobody would call him Jeronimo Cacau because Cacau isn't a part of his fullname. Cacau is his artist name. It's like when a actor changes his birth name. The abbrevation of his birth name is Jeronimo Barreto. I'm a German fan of him. Yoda1893 10:12, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for clearing that up; I wasn't aware of this fact. At any rate, the redirect has since been deleted. theProject 00:37, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] JarlaxleArtemis

You mistakenly deleted the article User:Psychonaut/User watchlist, which was listed for speedy deletion by a sockpuppet of User:JarlaxleArtemis, a vandal currently under community ban. Moreover, the page was not an attack page as claimed ("Pages that serve no purpose but to disparage their subject or some other entity"); it was a collection of links to arbitration cases and contributions pages for confirmed vandals and policy violators. The express purpose of this page, listed at the top, was to assist editors in monitoring disruptive activity on Wikipedia. Please be more careful in the future when processing speedy deletions. —Psychonaut 13:51, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

While I don't deny that keeping notes on other Wikipedians' behaviours is permissible on Wikipedia, I hope you will understand that calling them "problematic Wikipedians" at the top of said page does make it look much like an attack page. Personally, I would rather have that page go through an MfD to determine community consensus about it. Furthermore, I can't find any evidence that User:ArbMan is a sockpuppet of JA; the only claim that said user is a sockpuppet comes from you, and I can't find any further evidence, either from the user's block log or contributions.

I see you have restored the page (if you wish, I can restore the rest of the history for you), but I hope you understand why it was construed, wrongly or otherwise, as an attack page. Thanks. theProject 00:33, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

User:ArbMan is suspected to be a sockpuppet of User:JarlaxleArtemis because the latter has a recent history of vandalizing my user page and its subpages, including listing them for deletion or speedy deletion. If you had checked the page history you would have seen a link to the checkuser logs confirming that JarlaxleArtemis was responsible (through socks and throwaway accounts) for this recent vandalism. I believe that administrators should check the edit history and talk page of any page listed for deletion to ensure important evidence and discussion is not overlooked, particularly with pages that have been repeatedly vandalized with spurious deletion notices in the past. If you can restore the edit history to User:Psychonaut/User watchlist, that would be a good idea, as it might prevent similar mistakes in the future.

As for calling JarlaxleArtemis and others "problematic Wikipedians", this is a neutral and accurate description, since the community has judged their actions to have caused problems (that is, they have repeatedly and unrepentently committed vandalism and other policy violations). They were all the subject of successful RfAs and/or long-term blocks and bannings. Some of them continue to create throwaway sockpuppet accounts to wreak vandalism in violation of their bannings. If you still take issue with this wording, then I would advise you to edit the page yourself and/or take your objection to RfC instead of taking the rather drastic step of listing the entire page for deletion. By your own admission, your problem is with this one phrase and not the page as a whole; you don't need a MfD to delete two words from a page. If you can suggest an alternative wording which, to your mind, is less "attacking" but still conveys the same meaning, by all means edit the page. —Psychonaut 21:17, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] wikibooks now has import

Hi,

Wikibooks now has import enabled, so we're going to start emptying out Category:Copy to Wikibooks and Category:Articles containing how-to sections. Records will be available at b:Special:Log/import.

I had tried to create a template and category for articles that had been copied over about a month ago, but it was taken apart by a bot within a day or two, and I was unable to find where the discussion took place. Since you seem rather "connected" in the transwiki community, perhaps you could help out with coming up with some solution for pointing out articles that have been successfully imported and need cleanup and/or deletion? Preferably this would just involve a simple template or series of templates we could affix to the articles after importing. --SB_Johnny|^talk|_books 13:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

Thanks for taking care of the repeated vandalism on the Johnny Depp page :)