User talk:Mackensen/Archive16

No
Solicitation

Mackensenarchiv

Spammers: I would like for this page to stay reasonably clean. If you have business with me, feel free to leave a comment, else please move on. Please ignore the gigantic eye in the corner with the pump-action shotgun.

Unsigned messages will be ignored. You can sign your messages with four tildes (~~~~). I reserve the right to disruptively eliminate gigantic blobs of wiki-markup from signatures on a whim if I think they're cluttering up my talk page.

T:DYK.

Did you know? was updated. On 2 January, 2008, a fact from the article Chicago, Kalamazoo and Saginaw Railway, which you recently nominated, was featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

On 2 January, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Chicago, Kalamazoo and Saginaw Railway, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Congratulations! · AndonicO ^Talk 20:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Mackensen (talk) 20:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Iron Range and Huron Bay Railroad

Re: Iron Range and Huron Bay Railroad - Congratulations on another great article! Bigturtle (talk) 02:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WT:PERTH

Just giving you a heads up re a question there re railway templates. Orderinchaos 02:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And fixed. Mackensen (talk) 02:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mayfair Metra Station article

Hi again. I'm currently working on an article for the Mayfair (Metra) station, and while I'm almost finished, I'm having a lot of trouble fixing the transfer to the proper Montrose (CTA) station in the routebox. Is there anyway you can both fix this for me, and send me some tips on how to do so myself in the future before I submit it as an article? ----DanTD (talk) 06:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oberhof BLS track submission adj in DYK

Thanks for the adjustment in the Oberhof bobsleigh, luge, and skeleton track DYK nomination earlier today. I really appreciate it. Now, let's see if it does earn that. Chris (talk) 13:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry this is late, but i am happy to inform you that the article made DYK on the 14th. Thanks for your help. Chris (talk) 21:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"The Great Hunger"

Hi. Having come late to the "debate" on the famine page, I spent a while looking at the naming issue. I want to stress that the current name is a BAD name for the article. It is NOT unambiguous and it is NOT the most common name. There are many Great Hungers in literature and history and the Irish one is just one of several. Even in google books, "The Great Hunger" is mostly a translated Norwegian novel (440 references out of 854 in total) from the early 20th century. In terms of famines, there have been famines in China (several), Ukraine, Greenland etc. that have been called "The Great Hunger". As far as I can see the renaming was done with Sony opposing his own suggestion and only Sarah77 and Domer48 supporting. I wasn't involved but I understand your presence on the page in the first place was because of the disruptive activities of editors, including (but not limited to) those two. Please have a look at what I've found and mentioned on the talk page for the article. In light of these FACTS, the naming decision should be re-visited. Hughsheehy (talk) 19:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter — Issue XXII (December 2007)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter
Issue XXII (December 2007)

Project news

The Intelligence task force has been created.
The contest department has completed its ninth month of competition. The top scorer this month is Blnguyen, with 22 points, followed by Dreamafter, with 8 points, and Redmarkviolinist, with 6 points. Blnguyen also remains the overall leader, with 162 points in total. All project members are encouraged to submit the articles they're working on as entries.
Help with converting deprecated infoboxes is needed; any assistance is welcome!
{{WPMILHIST}} now supports an explicit tag (class=DAB) for marking disambiguation pages.

Articles of note

New featured articles:

New A-Class articles:

Current proposals and discussions

A discussion about minimizing terminological ambiguity has begun.

Awards and honors

Blnguyen has been awarded the WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves in recognition of his efforts in improving the quality of articles related to Vietnamese military history, including the creation of numerous A-Class articles.
Woodym555 has been awarded the WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves in recognition of his outstanding work on topics related to the Victoria Cross, notably including the creation of featured articles, featured lists, and a featured topic.
For their outstanding efforts as part of Tag & Assess 2007, Bedford, TomStar81, and Parsival74 have been awarded the gold, silver, and bronze Wikis, respectively.

Tag & Assess 2007

Tag & Assess 2007 is now officially over, with slightly under 68,000 articles processed. The top twenty scores are as follows:

1. Bedford — 7,600

2. TomStar81 — 5,500

3. Parsival74 — 5,200

4. FayssalF — 3,500

5. Roger Davies — 3,000

6. Ouro — 2600

7. Kateshortforbob — 2250

8. Cromdog — 2,200

9. BrokenSphere — 2000

9. Jacksinterweb — 2,000

9. Maralia — 2,000

12. MBK004 — 1,340

13. JKBrooks85 — 1,250

14. Sniperz11 — 1100

15. Burzmali — 1000

15. Cplakidas — 1000

15. Gimme danger — 1000

15. Raoulduke471000

15. TicketMan — 1000

15. Welsh — 1000

15. Blnguyen — 1000

Although the drive is officially closed, existing participants can continue tagging until January 31 if they wish, with the extra tags counting towards their tally for barnstar purposes.

We'd like to see what lessons can be learned from this drive, so we've set up a feedback workshop. Comments and feedback from participants and non-participants alike are very welcome and appreciated.

To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here.

Note: This newsletter was automatically delivered. Regards from the automated, Anibot (talk) 23:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

On 10 January, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Paw Paw Railroad, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Thank you for you numerous contributions to the DYK section! Royalbroil 14:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. Mackensen (talk) 14:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pere Marquette

You would be right on that. I trust you've made the correction.

Best to you. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 14:24, 11 January 2008 (UTC)Stan[reply]

What am I missing here?

[1] Wife? Risker (talk) 03:37, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm referring to the fallacy of many questions, the most prominent example of which is "Are you still beating your wife?" Mackensen (talk) 03:53, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that at least makes some sense. I've been asked some pretty weird questions lately, including a few by email, and wanted to make sure I wasn't missing some joke everyone else was in on. In an abstract way, the comment is probably more humorous than you realise. Risker (talk) 03:56, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michigan interurbans

FWIW, I added these to the defunct railroads section. Under List of Michigan Railroads The Defunct Interurban section says "No need for separate list, all interurbans are defunct." So you can sort this out, as I really did not know where to put them.

I was trying to create an article. I was quoting from the Michigan Historical marker, which is in the public domain. I was about to give a reference, and a link to the Michigan Historical Markers website (which I did not get to put in, as they deleted the article before I could do that). I made one edit, and the Wiki police jumped on this and deleted the article. Frankly, I'm not up to this fight, as it ain't worth it to me. They didn't give me five minutes to work on this before being both officious and overbearing at the same time.
I hope you can put together a great article on the subject. My parents loved the interurbans, and their destruction (and the loss of the streetcars in Detroit -- sold to Mexico City around 1955, where they are probably still running) was a tragedy of untold proportions, both for the society and the environment.

Best regards to you. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 17:54, 12 January 2008 (UTC)Stan Detroit, Lakeshore, and Mt. Clemens Railway)[reply]

Yes, I just added the section. What I'd meant was that there's no need for separate interurban and defunct interurban sections, as all interurbans in Michigan are, by definition, defunct. I'll amend that. Let me see what I can do about the deleted article. Mackensen (talk) 17:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's really not important. I'm just p.o.'d, and I'll move on to some other project. Indeed, if you put it in your more comprehensive article, everybody will be better served. There really isn't a need to Balkanize this for every little line. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 18:05, 12 January 2008 (UTC)Stan[reply]

It looks like it got deleted because the text in the wiki article and the text on the website were essentially the same, which violated copyright. I'm setting up a stub article at Detroit, Lake Shore and Mt. Clemens Railway. Mackensen (talk) 18:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Railroad I listed

Detroit, Lakeshore, and Mt. Clemens Railway
Michigan Shoreline Interurban Railway

7&6=thirteen (talk) 17:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)Stan[reply]

Michigan Historical Markers website

http://www.michmarkers.com/Frameset.htm 7&6=thirteen (talk) 17:58, 12 January 2008 (UTC)Stan[reply]

Thanks for the information. Good luck with your stub. FWIW, I don't think it did violate copyright. To begin, the website on Michigan Historical markers is itself quoting from the markers, which have text that is in the public domain. To be sure, I quoted from the historical marker, too. As to the rest of it, there are only so many ways you can say that service ended in 1927. They don't have a copyright on the thought, just on the words. Moreover, I was going to give a link and a reference. I was also working on this, and they jumped on it before it was little more than barely a glimmer in its daddy's eye, so to speak. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 18:31, 12 January 2008 (UTC)Stan[reply]

DYK

On 13 January, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article White River Railroad (Michigan), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Wizardman 00:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Mackensen (talk) 03:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For consideration

In regards the presently suspended Matthew Hoffman case, as you know there is an RfC currently running on Adam Cuerden. As an involved participant in that RfC I may request to be added to the resumed case as a party if that will not be inappropriate. If so, and having the greatest of respect for you would still like to avoid the appearance of any prior disputes between us being viewed as relevant to any decision. I ask you only to consider this and exercise discretion as to whether you might recuse as to my own involvement, or let me know what you think. Again, I have had nothing but friendly discussions with you since my first RfC ended, and if you think that it has no bearing on present circumstances, I will rely upon your judgment. —Whig (talk) 01:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When your situation has come up on the mailing list I've recused myself from discussion as a matter of propriety; if Adam's block of you takes center stage I will of course withdraw from the case altogether. Mackensen (talk) 03:36, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. I appreciate it, and your letting me know. —Whig (talk) 03:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another kind of Michigan railway

I wouldn't know where to put this in the List of Michigan railroads, but maybe it belongs there somewhere. Maybe you can figure it out. I don't think it should be disregarded. If you put that in, maybe the Detroit Zoo and the Henry Ford could be included, too.

The Michigan Au Sable Valley Railroad is located in Fairview. It is 1/4 scale 16 gauge railroad, that offers rides on a passenger train through the scenic Northern Michigan landscape. It operates in jack pine country during the summer months. Riders travel through parts of the Huron National Forest and overlook the beautiful Comins Creek Valley.^[1] 7&6=thirteen (talk) 20:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)Stan[reply]

p.s., there's also on in Royal Oak, Michigan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 7&6=thirteen (talk • contribs) 20:18, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's nothing different from the Michigan Au Sable Valley, the Detroit Zoo, and private logging railroads/industrial tramways. At the moment, List of Michigan railroads is just past and current common carriers, but there's no reason to not include private lines. We already cover (albeit in minor detail) Western Michigan University's former incline (Western State Normal Railroad). See East Campus (Western Michigan University)#Western Trolley. Mackensen (talk) 20:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Rapids%2C Kalkaska and Southeastern Railroad

On 13 January, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Grand Rapids, Kalkaska and Southeastern Railroad, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 20:30, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Mackensen (talk) 20:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conversion templates

Mackensen,

I've taken the liberty of removing User:Mackensen/ccf‎ from the conversion templates category. Hope you don't mind.

J ɪ m p 06:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Protection of Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/IRC/Proposed decision

On 17 January, following a series of edits to Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/IRC/Proposed decision, User:FloNight protected the page and added the following in an edit summary: "I protected the page from all editing until the case is closed or edits all agree to make all productive comments about the proposed ruling and not other editors". Flonight has not left any further messages as yet, so I am posting this message to all those who edited the page in this period, and asking them to consider signing this section at Flonight's talk page indicating that they will abide by this request. Hopefully this will help move the situation forward, and enable the talk page to be unprotected (with any necessary warnings added) so that any editor (including those uninvolved in this) can comment on the proposed decision. Thank you. Carcharoth (talk) 05:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to protect it myself. I rather doubt that any productive commentary could possibly take place if protection were removed. Mackensen (talk) 05:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Some period of discussion should be allowed. If the arbitration committee want to discourage input from the wider community (rather than the particular group involved here), that would be rather a big step to take (much better to politely listen and ignore if that is the choice made). Those banned from the pages could e-mail their thoughts. Asking the whole community to do that seems excessive. Carcharoth (talk) 06:15, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The Arbitration Committee discourages disruptive activity, particularly on case pages. The participation on that page has been rather limited; I suspect most of the community is off happily editing articles and doesn't give a good damn over the issue. Certainly it doesn't care enough to restrain itself, or its members. I can't imagine who could possibly be bail for that unprotection; I won't do it. Very little has changed in the proposed decision in the last few days; given that so much of it turned on personality I'm sure it can be (un)profitably discussed on the relevant talk pages. Input is fine; by no stretch can I call what I saw there today input. Mackensen (talk) 06:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note - read first

I'm on vacation the next three days. If I make any edits, I'm breaking my vacation and ought to be blocked or de-sysoped. Not a bad idea anyway. Pile up messages if you like; I won't see them until Monday. Mackensen (talk) 06:43, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IRC finding

You write "At root I think is an unwillingness/inability to back down from a situation until it explodes" [2]

If I might venture a personal insight, it's somewhat more difficult than that. I'm not even aware of being out on a limb in the vast majority of these cases. In the Bishonen matter I was only subjectively conscious of Bishonen coming along and gratuitously dragging up an ancient grievance. I did not examine my words until some days later, when I realised that my reply had compounded the original offence. I'm not going out of my way to cause offence, I'm simply doing so in the normal course of expressing my opinion, apparently without the ability of introspection to see the consequences. This is a new and disturbing discovery for me. Provisionally, I think that the only course of action is for me to be extremely careful in expressing my opinion in future, on any matter relating to Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway 15:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your point is well taken; this is what it looks like from the outside looking in. I can only speak from personal experience that alarms go off in my head (usually) before I go beyond what most consider appropriate. I base that on the feedback I get from other people. Unfortunately this project (and, for that matter, the outside world), doesn't always give good feedback soon enough. I recall this being the same problem in the Giano case, so I'm not sure I can agree that it's a new problem. I also suspect that the Committee, at this stage, will not rely on voluntary guarantees from anyone. Mackensen (talk) 15:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I well understand that this damaging case has long passed the point for voluntary remedies, and have indeed recognised my own propensities for intemperate expression and invited remedies. [3]. As I've said, I'll accept any necessary remedy without complaint, in the interests of a lasting peace [4].

When I say "new", I mean it's "a new and disturbing discover to me", no more than that. Obviously it might have been more apparent to you. --Tony Sidaway 16:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your note

Okay, thank you, I appreciate that. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:55, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ore dock

Saw a red link in your article... I thought I knew UP railways well but I had no idea about that one. :) (I have a very fond memory of my father and I weaseling our way into the SOO line roundhouse in Marquette and then sweet talking our way into the cab of an old F which was in the shops... ) ++Lar: t/c 23:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thank you. I was surprised that we lacked the article when I was putting IR&HB together; figured somebody from this state had to have tackled it before. My grandfather worked for the Escanaba & Lake Superior, so he used to tell me wonderful stories about that part of the state. The IR&HB itself was a lucky snag--ran across Barnett's article and decided we simply had to have an article on it. Mackensen (talk) 23:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Communication restricted

I think that's got a good chance of working [5]. Very much along the lines I've been pursuing recently. --Tony Sidaway 14:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd been thinking about such a remedy since the start of the month; effectively it's a restraining order. Mackensen (talk) 14:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[6] I think you meant remedy 2.1 instead of 3.1 in your statement. That was the best idea I've seen on that case. Thanks for coming up with it. SGT Tex (talk) 15:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, 2.1. Mackensen (talk) 16:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing the responses on the talk page, I think it needs to be settled that if two editors who are party to this case happen to contribute to the same discussion, it obviously doesn't necessarily constitute "[interacting] with, or comment in any way (directly or indirectly) about each other" unless they do in fact refer to one another. Or if it does, then that also needs to be spelled out, I don't care which. --Tony Sidaway 18:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Sandifer

I must say I feel that Phil has been unjustly entangled in this case. He is entitled to have an opinion on the subject, and (on his conduct immediately prior to the case) as an administrator he was entitled to use his best judgement to handle a situation in which he was not involved and in which he had played absolutely no part in causing.

He seems to be being penalized simply for making an ill-judged comment, which he withdrew as soon as he understood the problem. --Tony Sidaway 17:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Remarkably ill-judged, frankly. I suspect it won't be forgiven either. Mackensen (talk) 17:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Phil obviously did not intend what was imputed to him. Lawrence, on the other hand, stepped well over the mark, falsely claiming that Bishonen was "the victim of targeted misogynist harassment", an accusation that completely beggars belief. I did not intervene, having decided to avoid the risk of inflaming things, but frankly I found that statement by far the most shocking in the exchange. --Tony Sidaway 18:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IRC

can you PM me on IRC please? Thatcher 19:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not logged on at present; is it urgent? Mackensen (talk) 19:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sending you off well

Since I saw that you've completely withdrawn from all remaining arbitrator duties, I just wanted to say you've done a great job. Not that I always agreed with you, but you handled your role professionally and tactfully. I would have supported you for another term if you'd chosen to run, though of course your decision not to was the much saner one. Cheers, Heimstern Läufer (talk) 23:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think its too bad that you've withdrawn, and too bad also that you did not choose to take another term. Its completely understandable, though. I've been impressed by your reasoning and contributions, and as no one else has here yet I want to thank you for your long service on the Committee and the benefit the project has seen as a result. ^Avruchtalk 00:14, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I don't think many people approve of what Giano says. I know that I don't, but it seems futile to say anything to him about it. ^Avruchtalk 00:19, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your service as an arbitrator, which reflected credit on you and Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway 00:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have always appreciated your contributions. Jehochman ^Talk 00:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to say thanks as well. You were always prepared to discuss things during the IRC case, and handled yourself well in that case and on other cases. Best wishes for the future. Carcharoth (talk) 12:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Full marks for effort and good intentions (as per usual...) as well as thanks. Hopefully you're not going anywhere, there are still railway articles out there... ;) so I shan't say bye. ++Lar: t/c 19:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

I just wanted to express my personal thanks for all the work you have done for Wikipedia. I have been exasperated as the next man by some of ArbCom's decisions, but fully appreciate what an impossible task you have (had!). For what its worth, I find the lack of respect offered to you, and other Arbs, by some editors really quite despicable. I find it desperately sad that we, the community, will stand by and let someone be hounded in this manner, but at the same time I know I would have snapped a long time ago and so fully understand your decision. Anyway, please accept this, as but a token of appreciation:

		The Barnstar of Peace
		Simply for doing your best in an impossible job. Rockpocket 00:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As someone with tremendous respect for the careful work the ArbCom does, I'd also like to thank you for your service to the community. —Whig (talk) 07:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TOR block of 149.9.0.25

Hey, I noticed that you've blocked 149.9.0.25, as a TOR node, which, it is no longer. I was wondering, if you'd consider either allowing me to unblock it, or, unblocking it yourself please. SQL ^{Query me!} 20:25, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No objections from me. Mackensen (talk) 20:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done, thanks! :) SQL ^{Query me!} 20:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

South Shore Line (NICTD) map template

I looked at the history of the article on the South Shore Line (NICTD), and found the map template was either created by you, or merely installed by you. Whatever the case may be, it has one error. The Airplane logo should be at Gary Airport, not at Gary Metro Center. I'd fix it myself if I could get in. ---DanTD (talk) 22:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not guilty! (Well, almost ;)). The template is at {{South Shore Line}} - while I did create it, someone else added the airports. I've fixed it now. Mackensen (talk) 22:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DRV for Adult-Child Sex

Allow me to be the first to say good job on the DRV for this article. While my opinion did change in the debate after reading the admin's original resolution for the AfD, I was impressed by your reasoning and your explanation as to why you endorsed the deletion. This was going to be a difficult resolution either way and I just wanted to say thanks for handling it so professionally. Wildthing61476 (talk) 04:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A 'good job' note from me too. I saw the DRV and thought, "You know, the person who closes this, no matter what they say, obviously has to be working for the good of Wikipedia, since either way it goes they'll be lambasted by the involved parties." You're a braver person than I. Hopefully, no cretins come to lambaste someone willing to stand and make a decision on the matter! ~Kylu (u|t) 04:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with the above - thank you for closing this, it was a difficult situation. At least someone can't say it was closed by 'A newbie admin with no closing experience and no notion of policy' like they attempted to do (incorrectly) with Keilana's AfD close. ^Avruchtalk 04:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good but tough close. But don't you need/should to add a close tag on the main WP:DRV page? MBisanz ^talk 07:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right you are; looks like someone took care of it. Mackensen (talk) 11:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Admins who close DRVs fall into the following groups:

New admin, closure agrees with the commenter: This admin is wise beyond his years.
Old hand, closure agrees with the commenter: This admin has made a wise and thoughtful decision on this controversial issue.
New admin, closure is opposed by the commenter: This admin is too new to understand how policy and consensus work.
Old hand, closure is opposed by the commenter: This admin is too jaded/cabalistic/rouge to properly judge the merits of the case.

In short, it's like protecting The Wrong Version except that you usually have many more people willing to tell you about it. :-)

All kidding aside, though I can see your reasoning in endorsing the deletion and I respect the consensus determined, I think that the article itself should exist; One cannot address how the phenomenon was dealt with prior to the advent of modern understandings of childhood and child abuse within the single lens of child sexual abuse or slivered out over several articles with no comprehensive view. Once the pro-pedophile stuff is de-weighted, the remaining information could make a good article.

I'm glad that the DRV rationale doesn't close the door completely on the content of the deleted article. Can I have the deleted article emailed to me or put in my userspace so I can put any useful content into other articles? --SSBohio 19:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any of the folks in this category should be able to help you. Mackensen (talk) 19:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, SSBohio 19:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let me pile on here and say good job on this difficult case. Dreadstar † 00:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I concur, thank you very much. Best, Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 00:12, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My hero

I just read your user page. I noticed your mention of both Hegel and Mills. Any man who combines German idealism and Anglo/American liberalism is obviously one of good taste and intelligence. :) Vassyana (talk) 17:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why thank you :). Of course, I'm subverting Hegel by detaching him from the Frederican state he so dearly loved, but he's not around to shout at me. Mackensen (talk) 17:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! The combination of German idealism and Anglo-American philosophy is of some particular interest to me. It was surprising to encounter someone with at least a parallel train of thought. :) Vassyana (talk) 17:22, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MfD

Out of interest - what do you see as the relevance of the wikidash stats to the MfD? --Joopercoopers (talk) 22:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If nothing else, it shows that only a small subset of people have weighed in on the page's contents in a significant way. I'm not sure how this page would compare stat-wise to other policy pages... Either way - having a (currently) controversial page that results in such a big problem even though only 4 people have contributed substantially to it is a pretty strong argument for its deletion. ^Avruchtalk 22:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, among other things, that two of our colleagues were arguing over how much they discussed the page (about a line or two above me). I confess to also being tickled to find something that broke down pages that way–I've been looking for such a tool for some time. Now if they'd only update their data dump, or start querying live...Mackensen (talk) 22:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

^ Michigan and Au Sable Valley Railroad.

[1] Michigan and Au Sable Valley Railroad.

[1]