User talk:MarkGallagher/Archive10

Re: Questions

Hi MarkGallagher. Thank you for your questions. They are now answered and are available on my RfA page. G.He 16:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for helping with US Russian Alliance

Still pretty raw on this terminal. I saw the WP:CUTPASTE info on your talk page. I'll study up. Thanks again. I was trying to come to the aid of a newbie. User:Rjensen insists that this is a repeat "hoaxer" but I feel compelled to assume good faith. I've read enough invective by the Jensen not to stress overmuch about his lengthy rants. He means well. BusterD 00:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Question

I don't know if you remember, but you participated in an AFD discussion about multiple articles. The result was keep, and you stated

I would appreciate if some of the people who took part in merging this content would
replace the individual articles with redirects to the appropriate parent articles.
Cheers, fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 23:41, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

So I have been doing exactly what you suggested, merging the articles listed into the parent articles of WCAU-TV Reporters, WCAU-TV Anchors, etc. However, these edits have been reverted by User:CFIF, who says that the "keep" decision of the AFD forbids me to do this. I am not sure what to do. Can you offer me some guidance? Thanks, JianLi 17:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Deprod by author

Just to make matters clear, I wasn't protesting the author's ability to deprod the article (RNFFSHF); anyone can remove a prod. If I prod or prod2 something, and it's deprodded without comment or improvement (like this was), especially by the author or an anon, I usually take it to AfD with an explanation of what happened, in case anyone finds the information useful in making their vote. (I would have posted this to the AfD, but it's been closed as speedy-delete and closed AfD's shouldn't be edited.) --ais523 13:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

For one thing, the information helps establish why I'm taking it to AfD rather than just prodding it. Although 'deprod by author' clearly isn't a deletion reason, most such cases do eventually get deleted, especially when there isn't a comment. It also establishes that the author is likely to discover the AfD (if they took the trouble to deprod it, they're likely to notice the AfD notice). Finally, it lets me just repeat the prod reason as the nom (especially if someone else added the prod), and in the case of deprod2 shows that there were previously at least two people who agreed with the deletion and thought it was noncontroversial. Finally, I think that deprodding without comment possibly ought to be stigmatised; edit summaries should be used for major edits and edits which require explanation, and deprodding without a comment is much the same as going to AfD and writing 'Keep' without an explanation. AfD comments without explanation are often disregarded by closers; why should deprods be any different? --ais523 14:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

This discussion could probably invite more input. Do you mind if I copy it to Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion? --ais523 14:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

AfD

The reason why I brought President of Southern Virginia University to AfD was that I wasn't sure it merited even a redirect, but that a merge and delete might have been more appropriate, since it's probably not beyond the wit of the reader to search for "Southern Virginia University" instead, and unnecessary redirects make life confusing. However, it's not that important... --David Mestel^(Talk) 16:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/It's complicated

I saw your comment as quoted below on the above AfD. I am wondering your reasoning behind saying not to include the author removed prod.

"Also "Author removed prod" is one of those phrases that needs a damn fine reason to appear on AfD, and we don't appear to have such a reason today"

I would be interested as I regularly use that phrase, usually with the addition of "without comment" when moving to Afd from Prod.

Thanks.--Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 20:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello, Mark. I just wanted to say "Sorry for the confusion." I also was unaware of that being a taboo phrase. I haven't been active for a while, and within the last month since returning have not been active on AfD much at all. I had actually added that because when I was adding the AfD template I got an edit conflict -- someone had restored the prod. To indicate why I had taken it to AfD when there was a prod in place, I added the "Author removed prod" statement. It wasn't intended as an attack on the author. After all, it is the article under discussion, not the author. The statement was intended to head off confusion. It appears I created confusion instead. I apologize. SWAdair 03:37, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

"On A Free"

Well there you go. That's my new thing to have learned today, so I can go back to bed :P. BigHaz 23:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

DAS Games

Hi. Just a note regarding your comment at the DAS Games deletion page: please, in situations like this, take the time to explain why the user's actions were incorrect. As far as I can see, the extent of your advice was to tell User:Mr. Billion that he shouldn't have removed the prod tag from that page, without explaining the proper AfD process.

Please remember to take the time to explain these things to inexperienced users, or at least point them in the right direction so they can work it out for themselves. It's just a courtesy, but it can be very helpful for new and inexperienced users to be advised, rather than simply chastised. RandyWang (^raves/_{review me!}) 08:24, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Whale Song (novel)

The author is working to make the article better, also the book is now being published by Kunati Inc. Book Publishers of Canada so has moved beyond the realm of Trafford. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ecophreek (talk • contribs) . :Sorry, I almost never forget to sign my comments. ←ΣcoPhreek→ 14:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

User:MARVEL is back

Hi, MARVEL's back again under the name Still Standing (talk · contribs), he's also using profanities in his edit summaries. --ManiF 16:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

And he's back again under the names Abu Ali (talk · contribs) and Shereene (talk · contribs). --ManiF 17:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi again. Thunder-Bird (talk · contribs) is his latest sock who reverted Hatra to User:MARVEL's version minutes after the page was unprotected.--ManiF 14:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

MARVEL's created a bunch of new sock-puppets to revert Hatra to his POV version, Lion-Rider (talk · contribs) is another one. --ManiF 06:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Pull my finger out?

I know you don't mean anything nasty toward me on it, but I'm missing the reference here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

The proper study of encyclopaedists

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Belhaven Hill School

I'm trying to shift the focus of the schools debates from the various "stuck record" arguments that have bogged editors down for so long onto the finding, reading, citing, and evaluation of sources, using the new WP:SCHOOL criteria to do this in the same way that the WP:CORP did this for companies and products. As an editor who has done that very thing in the past, please consider helping by setting an example. Please independently consider the topic at hand from the perspective of locating and evaluating (in terms of its provenance and depth) the source material on the subject, and see what conclusions you come to. Uncle G 10:37, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Forbidden Truth

You beat me to it, but the text was also a blatant copyvio from the official site. exolon 10:30, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Admin request

Hey Mark. Could you please go make order on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Consumed Crustacean - block some socks, strike some votes. ladodgersss (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is the obvious puppetmaster there. Thx. - CrazyRussian talk/email 10:37, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Candidate pages

Hi Mark. Thanks for the note you left for me. I had marked the article for speedy deletion because I've seen so many candidate articles fail AfD; I figured it was SOP to delete them, particularly when there were no other claims to notability. I appreciate your comments. I guess I should mark such articles for AfD in the future to get a consensus. --Cassavau 13:43, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Forbidden Truth

why am i unable to submit a review of the band? it gets auto deleted :(

A word, please

Hi Fuddlemark,

You're a cool, funny guy, so I hate to come to your talkpage on a bit of a contentious note, but... I feel your ridiculing of Binguyen in the case of Frank Lloyd at DRV was inappropriate. My view: While there is no "Admin discretion zone" and AfD is not a vote, the "tally" of commenters' sentiments isn't entirely irrelevant either. To judge the strength of attachment the community has to a given position in a discussion, a numeric tally may sometimes serve as a rough benchmark. This may only happen if a.) every commenter included in the tally has a genuine argument based on policy b.) the policy arguments advanced are of equal strength. Sometimes, in limited circumstances, resort to numbers isn't evil.

Furthermore, while Binguyen close wasn't as thorough as might be ideal, he did base his so-called "personal opinions" on the questions raised in the debate. You may disagree with his judgment, but I think it unkind for you to have assumed the tone you did -- as if he were hopelessly befuddled, and you (the TRUE admin) knew indisputably that his conclusion was unreasonable. In your appeal to DRV, you failed to mention your own stake as a commenter in the AfD. Note also that your own AfD comment was of questionable value at closing time, given that the source on which it was partly based (JDP's vote) had been stricken by JDP himself. In short, your position was not unimpeachable here, and -- ideally -- you should have realized this in framing a gentler, more colleagial DRV request.

A note on bias: my position here isn't unimpeachable either, because your harshness toward an admin I know to be competent and thoughtful has left me miffed, so I'm sorry if I'm a bit harsh. Best wishes, Xoloz 15:29, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, that was odd reply. You may be right about the great cultural difference between Australia and elsewhere. See, in America, we certainly make "parodic comments" about folks behind their backs; however, we don't thereafter reveal to these folks the fun we've had at their expense in casual conversation (at least, not when sober.) So, it's nice to know I've been fodder for your and Aaron's amusement! ;) I do appreciate frankness.

For what its worth, the comments that you two probably misinterpreted (and parodied) might have gone something like this: In close cases, where the strength of policy arguments are relatively equal, and the margin of the tally for deletion is borderline (66-70%), then -- in that narrow circumstance -- an admin may invoke his discretion, and this choice should be respected, provided the reasoning given for the choice is sound. In short, in close case, I recognize that reasonable admins might disagree, and that the resolution of such a debate depends ultimately on the personal subjectivity of the closer. In three months as an admin, I've encountered this circumstance precisely twice, and I've explained myself as thoroughly as I could both times. Apparently, this wasn't thorough enough, as I left myself open to the attack of the antipodian wit. If that's the rarity that gave birth to your "Admin Discretion Zone" worry, then your comments were even more detached from my reality than I had imagined. Ah well.

As for the resolution of the DRV, that is purely a question of semantics. If I recall, you conceded the point to Freak of Nature that the original article was "crap" -- I read that as an abandonment of your desire to overturn, in favor of a desire to rewrite, and I so closed. It's difficult to say for sure which of us misinterpreted there, but I do stand by the closure as a sensible one based on my reading. Beatiful tongue ours, gift of Alfred the Great, able to unite and to divide our understandings simultaneously. Best wishes, Xoloz the fool 23:59, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:MUSIC

Wow [1], you do know that was 10,000 edits and 2,000 unchallenged deletions ago, right? ... - CrazyRussian talk/email 14:23, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

LOL. The trouble is that I like you, you opinionated prick. There, I said it. - CrazyRussian talk/email 20:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Odd Contribution history

I'm bringing this up informally because I'm not sure there is a problem here, but something about a new users contrib history bothers me. ***Ria777 (talk · contribs) signed up 2 weeks ago and in that time has made 1135 edits to articles, the vast majority of which seem to surround recatagorizing and removing catagories from articles. They also have a tendency to mark non-minor edits as minor. Maybe I'm being paranoid, but at the same time, I've seen my share of sneaky and unusual vandals. I just thought I'd get a second opinion.--Crossmr 17:46, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

"I have a dream ..."

JzG shares your dream, it appears. See also Wikipedia:AfD Patrol. Uncle G 10:05, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey

Hey Mark, how's it going? Isopropyl 02:46, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

That MfD

I'm going to let DRV do whatever they want to do -- I'm out of town for a week and I really can't spend any more on Wiki stuff right now :o -- Tawker 17:21, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

RFA

Thank you for voting on my RFA, which closed successfully this morning with a result of (64/3/3). I will be more careful with AFD noms in the future. Any further advice/guidance will be gratefully accepted. NawlinWiki 12:08, 26 August 2006 (UTC) talk contribs

Brisbane

I was wondering where abouts you lived. If you lived in brisbane, i could really use some help with an issue about the Brisbane Grammar School webpage. --Kiran90 09:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caoilfhionn Nic Pháidín

Not sure if you stopped by lately, but I was floored by how well process worked with this AfD. Cheers -- Samir धर्म 10:22, 30 August 2006 (UTC)