This 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.

Hi -- Got your message about these two articles. Having grown up in Maryland, I've got this basic idea of where the Allegheny Front goes and where the Allegheny Mountains are, but I'll need to back it up with some references. I think the A.Mountains article is pretty much on target. The A.Front article will match better if it says the front goes from Pennsylvania to West Virginia rather than all the way to Tennessee, but again that could just be my mid-Atlantic bias. Anyway, I'll be happy to add to the article in the near future. See you... --Ken Gallager 13:06, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying. As I mentioned, I thought I could, but all the other votes on the page I was on (Sept 12) were from admins, so I wasn't too sure. --Storkk 13:11, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't have suggested a reprod, but Akradecki said in his post to me that:

the talk page of each contains a note which reads, "I have removed the deletion notice just this once... If an admin determines it is still not worthy of existance, simply readd the deletion notice, I will allow it to go quietly.

Therefore, I thought that the prods weren't exactly contested. Obviously, I was wrong and afd would have been the better course. But I was aware of the rule. Thanks, NawlinWiki 22:44, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hope you don't mind if I chime in, here, too. I'm aware that if a prod is removed because it's contested, the article shouldn't be reprodded and sent to AfD instead. However, given that the article's creator was deferring opinion to an admin, and agreed to go with what an admined opined, it was no longer contested, and it seemed a reasonable thing to do to reprod it like the author offered. Akradecki 23:51, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I said in my other messages, I think it would be reasonable to recreate an expanded article that conforms to the relevant style guidelines and policies. Since the article contained so little content I don't see the point in wasting DRV's time since a DRV takes many days whereas a copy/paste takes a few seconds. It's your time and your choice though. I don't think the subject himself is non-notable (notability is not a deletion criterion anyway), but it contained enough hallmarks of a vanity article that I chose to speedy it. The people who were and are working so hard to prevent the deletion of a two-line article would do well to improve the article so that it is up to standards. Then this whole issue would be over.

Regards, Ryan Delaney ^talk

you might want to take a look at Rev. John Smith as well as the Chaplain's Association article you prod2a'd.--Vidkun 12:53, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the most recent heads-up. Sorry I haven't had time to respond more fully to the suggestion of a merge. My internet connection is down, and I am using a friend's computer, and they are just about to tell me my time is up.

I will respond more fully when I am back on line at home.

Cheers! -- Geo Swan 18:01, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the evidence is in the external links; New Music Canada is CBC Radio 3's playlist, so any band that has a profile on there by definition has at least one song in rotation on the network. I did add a sentence to clarify, however — I just think it reads kind of strangely in an encyclopedia article to make special note of what particular radio stations a band gets airplay on. But YMMV, I guess. Bearcat 21:00, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In order to gain a consensus concerning the issue at anti-Mormon, would you please comment here? --uriah923^(talk) 04:23, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct. I changed the closure notice accordingly. Sorry...rusty. :) I haven't closed one in awhile. --Woohookitty^(meow) 05:18, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please look at my proposal re 911tRtT? Thanks, — Xiutwel (talk) 08:38, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind adding your opinion here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Biblical_literalism thanks. --DjSamwise 21:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I love your POV disclosure - but what about the biggest one of all, politics? - CrazyRussian talk/email 06:23, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Kyra Phillips. For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk) This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

I've added a couple of references, as per your request. Very easy to do - it's a wonder that no-one who voted "delete because there's no references" didn't do something similar earlier... Grutness...wha? 01:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, To maintain continuity, I've replied to your comment on my talk page. Thanks, -JianLi 02:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for noticing the inconsistency between the AfD closures for the two Singaporean shopping malls you talked about on User talk:Mailer diablo. I was the nominator in both cases, and you are right in saying that logically, the two should have been dealt in the same way, especially since the one that was kept was, if anything, less notable than the one that was deleted. However, you will have noticed that both AfDs were heavily attended by people living in the area served by those malls (thanks to a noticeboard for AfDs for Singapore-related articles), who were able to lobby for "keep" through strenght in numbers, even in the absence of notability assertions or independent sources. The difference among the two AfDs, I'm afraid, lies in the number of uninvolved editors who took part in the debates; where there was little outside participation, I was unable to counter-debate the number of Singaporean voters alone (I was mostly busy with the other debates, as well as two other similar ones, also on Singaporean shopping malls, also with the same debate scenario). Still, thanks for taking an interest in the question. --Nehwyn 22:17, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the confirmation there. I was nearly certain there would be no problem, but decided I should give a detailed justification on closing anyway. By doing so, I could both better defend myself if there were somehow a problem, and make it clear that I was not attempting to invoke a non-admin WP:SNOW close, which I know at least one editor has recently been reprimanded for. Basically just being overly cautious, in other words. --tjstrf Now on editor review! 18:30, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I see you have contributed your thoughts to Wikipedia talk:Fair use/Fair use images in lists. It's been dead for a while, but I have archived it and taken a new fresh start. I hope this time we will be able to achieve something as I have summarized the main points of both sides (feel free to improve them) and I call you to express your support or oppose on the concrete proposal that I have formulated. Thanks, Renata 02:27, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. It looks wonderful; thanks for improving it! --DanielCD 23:50, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the Signpost note. I'm not sure what happened there, but I'm as happy as anyone to point out things that can improve the project. I've just been a bit sensitive, as people are really jumpy since the Seigenthaler incident. --DanielCD 00:22, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...an RfA nomination? Your thoughtful comments on clergy abuse and Mark Dratch remind me once again what an awesome user you are. - crz crztalk 04:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've solicited thoughts from a current and former administrator, for different reasons. I also want to think/sleep on this for a few days myself. (And I probably won't have time to attend to an RfA until after Thanksgiving, due to workload at the office.) GRBerry 05:41, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Yes, absolutely, woohoo!!! Your thoughtful comments have always had me throughly impressed, but I'm embarassed to say that I didn't check your userpage until just now. Even if I had never heard of you before, fellow Cantabridgians are virtually automatically support-worthy in my book. There may be a very, very tiny number of users who object to your religious musings on the userpage, but I cannot imagine any remotely plausible objection to your candidacy from anyone.

A more lengthy review of your contribution history only confirms my initial enthusiasm. Your handling of the controversy at Kyra Phillips was entirely civil, and I wouldn't expect anyone to question your conduct. Even your choice of myself and Tony as initial pre-screeners shows a definite wisdom. :) You clearly have a wide interest in the humanities (and the law, apparently), and I would never have guessed that you were an MIT "egghead." ;) Frankly, you're as well-rounded as anyone I've ever seen on the project, and better equipped for adminship than I am. So, yep... I'll give you Strong Support when the RfA comes to pass. Admiringly, Xoloz 15:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings -- you commented on a DRV which was overturned and is now back in AfD here. Just thought I'd alert you as I have produced references to support the article as well as reworking the article with reference and better format. Gh228 14:34, 2 November 2006 (UTC)Gh228[reply]

We seem to have gotten in the middle of the school deletionist/inclusionist shooting war. JChap2007 18:33, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is a slightly different area of disagreement, but when AFD arises the school war also affects it. (I'm personally taking another tilt at the windmill there; not that I expect it to matter.) It is disagreement over whether non-accredited schools should have articles in Wikipedia. Arbustoo is a campaigner for excluding non-accredited schools. Wikipedia needs campaigners in areas like this or garage bands, as probably most such articles are effectively spam. But campaigners should also recognize that no bright line test is 100% applicable for exclusion. And they should realize that when the community is generally disagreeing with them about a specific article, they need to either modify their behavior for that specific article or accept the community's disagreement and move on to other articles. That is how consensus works.

I'm not as certain what Alansohn's bias is; he didn't edit this article until after the first AFD, so he may be a school inclusionist that has adopted it as a personal article defense item. He certainly feels strongly about either the article or Arbustoo.

My current quality focus is sourcing. Because of the AFD pressures, this is one of the better sourced articles in Wikipedia. I'd rather see that level of sourcing effort go into core topics like Geology, which is massively undersourced. (It has only two citations, one for the etymology of the term and one for when it began to be covered by Encyclopedia Britannica.) But I am glad for any improvement in average quality. GRBerry 19:48, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable schools, garage bands and candidates whose only claim to fame is running for office. I've sharpened my lance for that particular windmill a few times myself. The problem is that these become red flags and too many !votes in AfD are just knee-jerk reactions. It becomes quite intolerable when the disputes turn into edit wars in article space. I agree with you that sourcing is a huge problem here. JChap2007 01:08, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Really, I am a deletionist of non-accredited schools? Then why do I spend so much time cleaning up notable ones at List of unaccredited institutions of higher learning and start articles for unaccredited Christian schools like California Biblical University and Seminary, California Graduate School of Theology, California Pacific School of Theology? Or start articles on unaccredited scam places like University Degree Program? I believe you bought into Alansohn false personal attacks against me. I invite you to review every single school at List of unaccredited institutions of higher learning to see my clean ups for notable unaccredited places. Arbusto 08:29, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I base my opinion on your behavior in the second AFD and the talk page for the article, plus a cursory review of your talk page in general and RfArb. (I read a good portion of RfArbs; though I think I've only offered evidence in one and commented in one or two others.) During the second AFD, each time one of your arguments for why it should be deleted was proven wrong, you reiterated again that it should be deleted for new reasons. In the end, it seemed to boil down to your wanting the article deleted solely because it was unaccredited, despite the fact that it more than met the usual criteria for notability. GRBerry 22:30, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe because each person is claiming it should be kept for various reasons? "It meets WP:CORP" citing three local papers, "schools are inherently notable" when this doesn't even have a classroom, or Alansohn's "I questioned the good faith of this AfD". Notice the pattern of JJay (talk · contribs) appearance in my afds. Arbusto 03:47, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would be nice if you try to defuse Alansohn's attacks on that article since you helped stir issues against me. His behavior and personal attacks are getting out of control. Arbusto 03:55, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can certainly ask him to tone down his comments, but unless you are he are both prepared to walk away from the article, I don't have a lot of hope. I am not very good at mediating conflict. Are you prepared to walk away and leave the article to other editors? GRBerry 04:02, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am not willing to "just walk away" from an article I first started work on in Febuary. I work a lot on the unaccredited schools, and am one of the few people familiar with the process of accreditation. I will not be bullied by vicious, ignorant attacks away from it. This place is at least 7 years (2 years of the board and 5 years of canidancy) off from being accredited by SACS (that's assuming it can meet the requirements), hence it is completely premature to give the reader any impression the place can apply to it. Right now it can't even legally issue degrees. Arbusto 04:23, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't think you would. But please go read this official policy anyway. GRBerry 04:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1) Other people are even saying "this discussion is based on a limited understanding of the processes of certification and accreditation". The content is incorrect; that has nothing to do with ownership. 2) Can you admit you were wrong about me being a unaccredited school deletionist? Arbusto 04:33, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for you efforts to try to defuse this situation. Your reminder for cooler heads to prevail is well taken. It's interesting to see the discussion above, and the tone of some of this conversation. I'm not sure how on earth I ended up at the B. H. Carroll Theological Institute, but it was probably on a search through AfDs. If I see an article that might be worth saving, and if research shows justification for retention, I will work to improve the article and bring it up to general acceptance, and once I do so, the article ends up on my watchlist. I check my 6,000-item watchlist regularly, to verify edits, clean up vandalism, correct sources and add references. It's very easy for me to ignore an article: just don't edit it. The article survived one AfD, thanks to extensive expansion and improvement. It survived a second AfD after additional expansion, particularly with additional articles from major national newspapers identified via the Google News Archive. I was shocked to see the nominator making notability claims less than 36 hours after the failure of the second AfD, which was the largest majority keep vote I have ever seen to be closed as "no consensus". I have no idea what the issue is with this article, but I am very uncomfortable with the approach that has been repeatedly taken to try to delete this article. If there are those who think this article deserves to be deleted, there seems to minimal agreement and I am more than prepared for AfD number 3. If there is an genuine effort to improve the article, I would be more than happy to have the support and mutual cooperation. Alansohn 04:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked at this again and it seems obvious that this is an edit war gone out of control over a relatively minor difference in shades of meaning. There's no shame in admitting this; anyone who has edited here for a while has probably been sucked into one of these. The problem is that the amount of effort expended on this edit war is vastly disproportionate to the difference in the language each of you want. Edit-warring represents an opportunity cost. Think about it this way: even if you "win," will the difference in wording really have been worth the effort in improving the encyclopedia?

The well seems to have been poisoned on this one. Alan, I think you need to realize that there have been significant problems with unaccredited school articles, so you need to understand that we have to word these carefully and include the template that you have the concerns about. One of the problems here is your repeated accusations of bad faith against Arbusto (even if they were true) do nothing to help improve the article, nor are they, in themselves, arguments that support a particular wording. Perhaps it has become time to concentrate on all the other articles on your watchlist (and thanks for your efforts on these articles by the way)? Arbusto, since you do not believe that this subject merits coverage in WP, why not walk away from it? I've walked away from articles when it became clear that I couldn't delete or merge them. There are other articles here that could use your obvious talents. And guess what: if this article is put up at AfD, it is not going to be deleted due to (i) people who will !vote Keep on procedural grounds because it has already been nom'med twice and (ii) the usual school inclusionist crowd. The vitriol has gotten to such a point that you each need to "win" and show that the other person is wrong.

GRBerry has suggested that we submit this dispute to RfC. I think this may be the only way to solve this problem. We could ask commentators to review various versions of the disputed passage and make suggestions aimed at reaching a compromise. JChap2007 18:35, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify the details of my proposal (because it is not above). I suggest that each of your write, on the article's talk page, the perfect NPOV version of the accreditation section in your mind. (Please use the <ref></ref> version of citation, as that is the standard used in the article.) Don't comment on each other's version until after you both have written one. Do explain why you think your version is perfect. Once you both have one up, we'll give you and others involved in the discussion window of opportunity to comment, then open a RFC at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Society, law, and sex.

This obviously isn't the only way to go about this. Better would be for the two of you to work together on the talk page. If that can't happen, as a regular responder to RFC queries, I'll say that it is better for both sides to put their best case forward before the RFC is opened - each feels that they had their best shot whatever the outcome, and the work of the RFC responders is the best it can be.

My draft text of the RFC query is "a dispute about the proper wording of the "Academics and accreditation" section of an article about a non-accredited institute. This has blown into a low intensity edit war and outside opinions are requested." (Plus appropriate wikilinks.) GRBerry 18:51, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that clarification. I had not intended to misrepresent the specifics of the proposal as being yours, although I seem to have inadvertently done so. The reason for my suggestions were to divert this from being a competition, but I certainly appreciate the advantages of your idea. JChap2007 19:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to send you an email but your email isn't activated. JoshuaZ 16:29, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sent. JoshuaZ 16:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for explaining properly to me the process whereby a proposed guideline becomes official guideline / policy over at Wikipedia_talk:Schools --Amists 10:53, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for cleaning up the little mess I made with AfD/Southeastern Connecticut, et al. Jd2718 22:08, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your insightful and well written opinion on my DRV topic. I've been looking around off and on for an essay on citing and/or referencing articles that are discussions about one particiular popular culture work (books, movies, telvision series, video games, etc.), yet I couldn't find anything. I was thinking about starting one up. Do you think that it is feasible to write an essay about not having to reference outside second party sources when applied this way? Take for example A Tale of Two Cities there are no references because the entire article is a discussion about the book. The reference is implied within the article itself. Just wondering what your opinon is on this. I couldn't back up my argument with any essay citations because there were none. Yet, I do know there were others in the discussion who shared my point of view. If an essay was written would this stregthen the argument? I can see many, many articles about popular culture works being deleted because of this over sight. --Pinkkeith 19:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about referencing cliffnotes. That has always been frowned upon in any academic circle. How about the books that don't have a cliffnote? There are also a number of articles about television episodes, look at Walkabout (Lost) for example. You would never be able to reference these with a cliffnote. I am guessing you're not agreeing with me that it is plausable to write an article about a popular culture work without having to cite/reference from a second party. If that is the case there are a number of articles that need to be deleted, perhaps in the thousands. --Pinkkeith 21:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GRBerry. I understand that your problem with the deleted article was the lack of referencing. Most of the references were lost during deletion so the version I posted on my user page was incomplete. I have now added some of the lost references all of which refer to Spanish Gibraltarians. I seriously dont understand in what way this article should be more problematic than an article on Maltese Gibraltarians, Irish Americans or Swedish Argentinians!

Thanks --Burgas00 18:15, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have created a Johnson merger proposal after thinking about your clear thoughts on the topic. Feel free to comment comment. TonyTheTiger 21:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with this article is that there are so many strong disagreements between me and SSS108 that I could file a request for comments every week. We have already gone through mediation and arbcom arbitration. I do not know what to do anymore. Andries 21:52, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you reverted alleged vandalism in this article. I am perplexed. Is there really a Wayne Gretzky University and did Roth really attend it? If so I withdraw gracefully, but I suspect you may have reverted this accidentally. Since I am unsure I am simply asking you to check. I have looked at a number of the historical versions and Gretzky seems to be a new "variant" on the name of the university which has steadfastly been Wayne State. I have no knowledge of Roth's education, I just noticed this oddity and thought to bring it to your attention and consideration.

Roth is controversial at the moment because Conservative Judaism is about to discuss on 6 December whether or not to ordain homosexual rabbis and he is firmly against. Thus his article may well come under what one might term "close scrutiny" for a while Fiddle Faddle 23:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I was seeing too many problem edits by the user whose contribution I reverted. I've fixed, reverting further back to an edit I have more confidence in. GRBerry 01:44, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If none of us made errors... We've all done it. If I'd been on safe knowledge based ground I'd have sorted it out too. The other edits done by that editor were strange, at best :) I can see why you acted. Fiddle Faddle 07:24, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GRBerry, hi. Sorry for taking a couple of days to get back to you. I've seen your involvement in a few discussions and debates around here. You've struck me as a reasonable person who has some idea how to de-escalate situations and avoid drama, which is a Very Good Thing for an admin. I've just looked over some of your recent comments at WP:DRV, and you seem to have the kind of grasp of policy that I think admins should have. I would support you in an RfA. -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:36, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working slowly through the ArbComm elections. My general plan is to oppose as soon as I've decided to do so, but wait until later for support decisions. I have a piece of paper with my planned support list in hand, but intend to rereview all of them, in case my standards change while reading everyone else. However, I did early support one candidate that I'm convinced would be a good candidate because of the terrible reasons that others were giving for opposition. GRBerry 18:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. I just read your comment on the above-mentioned AFD, and I agree with your proposed course of action. Might I just suggest that you word your vote as Merge (which would seem to me to more accurately describe what your prose says), or at least place the "and UNDO" part in bold as well? Just for reasons of it being more visible to a closing admin (or to anyone speed-reading the votes, for that matter) that it's not a "be gone with it" vote. Just a suggestion :) Capi 16:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your input would be appreciated at this Request for Comments. Kelly Martin (talk) 17:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See Modern attempts to revive the Sanhedrin and the web site http://www.thesanhedrin.org/en/. --Shirahadasha 23:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that was interesting reading. GRBerry 01:44, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Will let you know. I am writing my last exam tomorrow and thursday (it's a 24hr) and would be prepared to draft by Thursday afternoon. - crz crztalk 04:21, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ohhh, this is one I'll be happy to support. Yanksox 06:00, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, that's not what I meant. I'll try to clarify now on there. Just H 20:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am expecting a co-nomination. Please answer the questions, but don't accept and list until that user has had a chance. Thanks. - crz crztalk 22:35, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Go! Good luck. - crz crztalk 17:42, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have written some proposed text for a merged and simplified page, please see the continued discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Notability (organizations). This is also posted at the Companies & Corporation page.

Hey. I and another have asked you to clarify and/or reconsider, see there. - crz crztalk 01:35, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thx. - crz crztalk 01:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well done on getting eighty-five support votes on your RfA - you must be very pleased with that result! A Bureaucrat will be along shortly to issue you with a shiny new set of admin tools. I see that Alex is your nominator - he should be able to answer any questions that you have about your new admin tools. If he can't or isn't available for some reason then please feel free to leave a message on my Talk page. I'll make my best efforts to get back to you with a good answer! Happy mopping and a Happy New Year! (aeropagitica) 01:09, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations from —sd31415 (sign here)! 01:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats from me too. I'm sure you'll swing the mop well. And as I said during your RFA, there's always a need for another pair of eyes at DRV. ~ trialsanderrors

Congrats! You'll set as great an example as an admin, as you have as an editor. yilfs, Lentower 13:47, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you have questions, feel free to leave a talk page message for me or any other admin. Again, congratulations! Essjay (Talk) 02:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, GRBery! Have fun with the admin tools, and if you ever need any admin-related help, feel free to contact me. =) Nishkid64 16:45, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MAZEL TOV. - crz crztalk 23:16, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This 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.