User talk:PeterSymonds

Emochila

Hi there, i had a question about the article Emochila that you deleted. I had been working with GRuban to get the article listed, if you see the talk pages of the article. About an hour after he issued a Keep on the article, it was deleted. The only reason I can see for this, was that someone had complained about a deletion of their talk (which I didn't do!) and that the article was spam and written by an officer.

I'm perplexed. I followed exactly the directions of GRuban, and he doesn't think it's spam - it's not! - and issued a keep, and i certainly am not an officer of this company, so that argument is unfounded. Can you please tell me why that Delete happened? Kwintern (talk) 21:24, 17 August 2008 (UTC)kwintern

Deletion review for Emochila

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Emochila. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Kwintern (talk) 21:33, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Gemeindeverband Hochsauerland-Waldeck

You declined my A7 speedy for Gemeindeverband Hochsauerland-Waldeck on the grounds that Waldeck is a region. I've no doubt that it is, however, Gemeindeverband Hochsauerland-Waldeck is a Verband, which is a kind of German collective of organisations which work together. As such the article qualified for A7 as an organisation. And the article contains nothing to say why it is a notable organisation. --JD554 (talk) 11:04, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

No problem, thanks. --JD554 (talk) 11:17, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Galileo

Galileo is one of 100 biggest yachts in the world. All other superyachts have their own pages at wikipedia, so why Galileo cannot? Let me edit the page by adding pictures and external links to prove! This article was writtem by myself, so what is the point of Blatant copyright infringement? What about to delete Eos, Malteese Falcon etc.???? —Preceding unsigned comment added by NataliaSpatar (talk • contribs) 11:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Jimmy J. Sellars

Hi, Sorry for putting a second speedy delete tag on Jimmy J. Sellars, I didn't note the first decline. Thanks for your tolerance. Regards, WWGB (talk) 12:08, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Before you declined I was going to speedy this under G3. Looking at the notability asserted it seems a series of Australian based IPs have been adding him to the articles of Sonic Youth, The Germs and The Brian Jonestown Massacre however he exists nowhere else on the internet. It's a sophisticated hoax attempt, but is is a hoax being performed by SPAs. –– Lid^(Talk) 12:08, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you're probably right; I've no objection to deletion on that grounds. I can't verify it either. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 12:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Page deleted?

Peter, you deleted the page for the Cherry Creek Diversity Conference because you said it didn't indicate the importance of the group? The conference is mentioned on another wikipedia article (Cherry Creek High School) so I was trying to expand the knowledge base. Additionally it is a major annual event in Colorado for over 1,000 high school students. Considering wikipedia has pages for far fewer important items, I'm confused why this would be targeted for deletion. Joeschmoe81 (talk) 14:40, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

welcome

Thank you very much for your automated welcome.

May i ask, i have posted two questions at the help desk, would they be better suited for Reference Desk Computers? ¬¬¬¬ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Examtester (talk • contribs) 17:21, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Possibly. No worries though. :) The people at the Help Desk will be quick to point you in the right direction. Sorry for the delayed reply; I didn't notice this here. Basically if it's at all Wikipedia-help-related, go to Wikipedia:Help desk; if it's for general off-wiki issues, it's best to go to the reference desk. If you have any general queries about Wikipedia, feel free to drop a note to my talk page, and I'll answer as quickly as possible. Again, welcome! PeterSymonds (talk) 16:05, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Guru Nanak Institute of Management‎

Hello There!!!

An user is removing tags and adding personal info within the article named Guru Nanak Institute of Management without any proper reason. I cant make more reversal else i'll breach WP:3RR. Please look into this.

Thank you.

Hitro 17:17, 14 August 2008 (UTC)Hitrohit2001

Radio Cab deleted?

Hi Peter, you deleted the article of Radio Cab, but it was a nutral article I had written becuase it was a new kind of service started in India. I had also quoted news articles for the same. I am a Software Engineer and had no interest in any advertising of that service, which anyway is not from a single vendor or service provider. I had mentioned this in the talk too. Waveking (talk)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/August 4 userboxes

Hi. May I ask how did you weigh the arguments presented in this debate? And based on which policy that you find "the rationales presented by those in favour of deletion were strong in comparison to some in favour of keeping all"? I may be biased, because I've commented in that discussion, but I do find it hard to perceive any consensus for deletion being formed there. Best, --PeaceNT (talk) 11:04, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

A lot of comments for keeping were for the hair colour userboxes. Comments such as "Keep all User boxen wars are over people." were personal opinion and possible bias. I saw no evidence that the userbox dispute was over people, but rather their content. The female editors that were commenting in the MfD were ones I sincerely respect: Alison, Krimpet, Eliz and Rebecca and AlisonW, for example, and I know their judgement is sound, so their interpretation of what the userboxes meant also meant a lot when making my decision. That was not so much based on policy, but if our female editors misinterpret userboxes and consider them to be demeaning, then that's a serious and problematic issue. The "delete all" comments that came before the significant discussion on compromise, and the discussion worked out a userbox on hair colour that was satisfactory to all. That was my reasoning for my decision, so feel free to ask me further questions. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 11:27, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I must take issue with your reasoning. Three things: a/ You put more weight in the votes of editors that you respect, because (in your opinion) "their judgement is sound" regardless of whether it is based on policy or not? b/ You did realize that they misinterpret (your word) the content of the userboxes, but you deleted them anyway? c/ Did you really mean to say, this closure was "not so much based on policy", but rather subjective judgment? --PeaceNT (talk) 12:34, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I never said I put more weight on the comments from editors I respect: I took their reasoning into consideration. And yes, to a certain extent, I did put opinions before policy; I don't see any reason why not if our female editors are offended by them. There was a concerted effort to improve the userboxes on hair, which met with wide approval, but no effort was made with the others which met the same approval. If they are able to be misinterpreted in such a way, they should be reformed; editors did so with the hair userboxes, so why wasn't the same done with the others? Simply saying "they were fine as they are" is unacceptable, because the MfD clearly showed that the boxes weren't fine with everyone. This isn't an article, but subjective opinion anyway: userboxes expressing likes and dislikes are subjective in themselves, and will not be shared by everybody else. So it's not so easy to close such an MfD based solely on policy. Wikipedia:Editors matter works both ways. I'm sorry, but my reasoning was not based solely on policy, and it really couldn't have been. But as an admin and editor, I feel I must respect the views of the community, and I really would not have been if I'd simply closed as keep. PeterSymonds (talk) 12:59, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

"But as an admin and editor, I feel I must respect the views of the community, and I really would not have been if I'd simply closed as keep." You have an option which you haven't considered: no consensus. Closing as "delete" because several editors misinterpret the userboxes - while many others do not see a problem - doesn't show that you "respect the views of the community". --PeaceNT (talk) 13:03, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I personally don't believe there was any close that would've been satisfactory to all. One userbox wasn't even used, and the other was found to be generally offensive. No-one expressed any approval of the changes made. I don't believe it was a simple "no consensus" either, but I suppose that was merely my judgement based on the arguments as the discussion progressed. PeterSymonds (talk) 13:30, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

The userbox that wasn't used could have been removed from a userpage when it was speedy deleted. Regarding Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/August_4_userboxes#.7C---.3E_Compromise_on_Loves_sexy_girls, no compromise would mean no-consensus. While it's true that "no-one expressed any approval of the changes made", it is also true that many editors who voted keep do approve of the userbox content as it was, which means without changes made. I still don't see where this "consensus" for deletion comes from. --PeaceNT (talk) 14:09, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. There was no consensus for any of the deletions here (I should note that I didn't comment in the discussion and was actually heading to close it myself when I saw that you already had). I think you should consider reversing that part of the closure. Regards, IronGargoyle (talk) 15:30, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

BBW wasn't in use at all, even before the MFD was closed- let it die imo. The beautiful women could probably be restored - that was a compromise version from sexy girls and no one came back to comment on it. –xeno (talk) 15:32, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

(<--) I obviously disagree with undeleting any of these, but if an uninvolved admin requests it then fine. I agree with Xenocidic that debating the unused userbox is futile; what's the point in undeleting something that was never even used in the first place? MfD altered to include undeletion of the beautiful women userbox. PeterSymonds (talk) 15:38, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

• I don't blame Peter for this. This MfD was plagued with so many issues, it must have been very tough to sort out what the consensus actually was. They should not have been lumped all together. The transexual-related ones should have had their own multi (the g7 and out of process re-deletion probably muddied the waters as well), the hair colour ones their own multi, and the sexy girls/bbw should have been discussed on their own. Thanks for restoring the beautiful women one, I've no prejudice to relisting if some people still think it's problematic in its revised version. –xeno (talk) 15:46, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, no, I don't blame him in general. I would normally agree with you about unused user boxes, it was just the PeaceNT made a good point about them having been removed. I think there probably was consensus for deletion on the Shemale box. It's a shame Krimpet had to wheel-war on it before the MfD was over. G7 is G7, and that's fine. IronGargoyle (talk) 15:53, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Hrm, I ran a transclusion check midway through the MFD and it wasn't in use. Though people may have removed them because they had the MFD tag slapped up that John254 insisted on transcluding through. –xeno (talk) 15:55, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Could have happened after the speedy deletion or during the DRV as well. *shrugs* IronGargoyle (talk) 16:01, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

True enough. –xeno (talk) 16:59, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Er, what?

Uh, perhaps you can explain why you archived the discussion before the conclusion was arrived at? Clearly, the second part seems to indicate that we are allowing the banned user to post, but the initial concern seems to have been shut down before we arrived at a conclusion (or even an answer, for that matter). Or was there an answer that I missed? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I got that folk wanted the topic of allowing the banned user to post had overwhelming, emotionally brittle support. I also saw the linked closure of the perennial SandyGeorgia/DavedShankbone arguments.

However, that isn't what I asked initially in the post, and there seemed to be no resolution to that matter. The question was whether we list Jeffpw in the list of Deceased Wikipedians. Maybe I was unclear. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:41, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Exemption of account from block

Hi, Peter. Thanks a lot. The block was really getting on my nerves as I kept butting up against it every now and again. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 17:45, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of May contain nuts

I counted 3 Deletes, 5 Keeps and 5 Userfy? Has it been userfy-ed, or is that something I have to do? -HarryAlffa (talk) 20:54, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Katherine St-Laurent Article

I accept the decision, but have two requests:

(1) I did not have a chance to make an archive copy before the article was deleted. I would like to retain a copy in the event that Katherine St-Laurent does establish a notable career.

(2) No reasons were given for the deletion. I would appreciate some words of explanation.

Thanks for your attention to this.

JD Fan (talk) 23:51, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

At this point, I will be stepping aside from further Wikipedia work, except maybe to maintain 1 or 2 previous articles. I have no desire to write any other articles that could be deleted in the future.

But I would like an archival copy of what I wrote in the Katherine St-Laurent article, and some idea of what the decisive reasons were for the deletion.

JD Fan (talk) 19:28, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Steve Brye hook

I tried to update the Steve Brye before it was updated to the main page. The hook is misleading, should I report it to "errors" or is this something you are able to update? Source Thanks, Mitico (talk) 00:08, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I have posted at Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors#Steve Brye. Mitico (talk) 00:22, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

The Antique Gift Shop

Peter Symonds, I read "13:03, 3 August 2008 PeterSymonds (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "The Antique Gift Shop" ‎ (A7 (group): Doesn't indicate importance or significance of a group/company/etc.) (restore)"

I am afraid that is not an acceptable use of Speedy. When a manhwa is listed, notability is asserted. The companies listed are all major publishers. Next time, if you are questioning whether something is really important or significant, please use AFD. I am aware that someone else tagged it, but that someone else is now being told to restrict his speedying. See, as a deleter it may help to look at the article to ensure that the use of the said speedy is proper. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:38, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

DYK of mine

Well, thanks for congratulating me on my first DYK?. Well, have a nice day; H2H (talk) 02:31, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Jay Brown

Please read the first sentence of the page before removing the image again "Jay Brown is a fictional character" Hence not a BLP... GunGagdin^Moan 22:58, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

It's cool, someone else did the same thing earlier on too :) GunGagdin^Moan 23:03, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

DYK missed credit

OK, so it's petty, and it's certainly not your fault, but I missed a DYK credit. In this diff you did the credits, but whoever moved Marilyn Roman into the next update template messed up the credits for the nomination. Alansohn nominated an article that I wrote. Can I get a little credit for the writing? Thanks. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me | Review me} 01:41, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

DYK update

PeterSymonds, you there? DYK is over 2 hours late and I've just finished with the update. Thanks, I'll do talk page credits. :) -- RyRy (talk) 03:15, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of creationist museums‎

Excuse me - you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of creationist museums‎ as a "Delete" - can you explain your reasoning, please? Thanks, GRuban (talk) 13:11, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Consensus was in favour of deletion, so I closed it thus. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 13:17, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but can you be a bit more specific? See, different admins mean different things when they say "consensus". Some mean "everyone agreed" - which doesn't seem to be the case. Some mean "the overwhelming majority agreed" ... which, with 5 people arguing for delete, and 3 for keep, doesn't seem to be overwhelming. Some mean "as the argument went on, more and more people changed to delete" - which also didn't seem to happen. Some mean "all those who had reasonable arguments, according to guidelines and policy, agreed" - which I hope isn't the case, given that the delete arguments were, basically, "too many red links", which isn't a reason for deletion of the list (at most of the individual links), and I believe I showed many could be turned into reasonable articles, I went and did two of them when challenged. Some just mean "the majority agreed", counting votes. Or do you mean something else? Which do you mean? --GRuban (talk) 13:29, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

While we're discussing it, would you be so kind as to drop a copy of the deleted article in my userspace, so I can have a clearer reference to what it looked like? Thanks. --GRuban (talk) 13:42, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

There were two main reasons why I closed: The solid arguments WP:SALAT and WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. "Keep - but remove red links" isn't really a solid rationale; it didn't really address the two arguments above. The second keep was stronger, but again didn't really address the points above, and was more along the lines of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. As We66er said, removing the redlinks would leave a list of five, which defeats the object of a "list". On the counter side of that argument, redlinks show potential for new articles, but when there are so many redlinks, there is no need for such a list. There were many items on the list, yet only a handful were referenced, and as another said, one of the organisations on that list had been deleted previously through AfD. The strongest keep therefore was WP:STAND, but that was struck as a result of misinterpretation. This is the full reason for my close. However, deleting admins don't generally say any more than "keep" or "delete" in their closing statement, unless 1) there is a specific reason for the delete and/or 2) it was a decision that could cause controversy. Generally the reasons for delete are ascertainable in the discussion itself. By the way, the text is at User:GRuban/deleted article for your review. Best, 13:57, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Actually, We66er is wrong; if you look, deleting the red links would leave a list of nine, which is longer than List of Jewish United States Supreme Court justices which has seven, was created by administrator User:BrownHairedGirl, and was met with an overwhelming keep at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish United States Supreme Court justices, including strong arguments by highly respected admin, and later arbitrator User:Newyorkbrad, so I don't think there's any issue with it meeting any minimum length for lists. And the "too general or too broad in scope" are not likely, creation museums pretty clearly identify themselves as such, and there aren't unlimited numbers of them.

Anyway; what would I need to do to restore the article without your immediate re-deletion as closing admin? Would restoring it without some of the red links suffice? How about just keeping those that have external references in reliable sources? Would turning some more red links blue suffice? How many? Are there any other changes I need to make before it can be recreated? Or do I need to take it to WP:DRV no matter how I want to restore it? --GRuban (talk) 14:42, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello? I know you're out there, I can see you editing. :-) I was hoping this would be a simple enough question. What do I need to do so that you, personally, the deleting admin, will not object to my recreating this article, or do I need to go to DRV no matter what? --GRuban (talk) 13:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, done, I've been debating about what to do with it. I've temporarily restored the whole history to your userspace (User:GRuban/List of creationist museums‎) so you can work on it if needed. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 13:37, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I've been working on it, yesterday turned a third link blue, which seems to back up the point that many of these red links can become reasonable articles in themselves ... and even those that can't stand alone, can surely justify a line or two as part of a larger article. So I just want to know what I need to be able to make that larger article, given the AfD. Please say when you've decided. Hopefully it won't take longer than the course of the AfD did. :-) --GRuban (talk) 13:51, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

British People

I think you may need to put the protection back in place. --Snowded TALK 20:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Katherine St-Laurent Article

Can I get an answer on this? [1]

Thanks!

JD Fan (talk) 22:44, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

DYK

Wow... I am special :p this is why I usually stay away, both times I've tried, I have managed to botch it... --Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 23:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Well... okay then :p --Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 23:32, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Katherine St-Laurent Article

Thanks for your reply. If you could restore it temporarily to my user space and let me know, that would be great. I'll pick it up right away and archive it onto my system. No worries about my reposting the article as I am stepping aside from new articles.

Thanks again.

JD Fan (talk) 23:42, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Emochila

Could you please restore the deleted talk page listed above? It seems it may play a role in the Afd for that article. Thanks, Hobit (talk) 01:11, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Katherine St-Laurent

Thanks very much for the text, which I added to my files and then deleted from the User Page. If Katherine St-Laurent gets going with her career down the road, it will be handy for reference.

Her performance on Canadian Idol was uneven, and she did have an early exit, but the judges said she had the best voice in the competition, and her best performances were excellent. With more practice and less pressure, she could be really good and could get some hits out there. She's on to post-secondary music studies now, and if she has good sense, she will build a career in Quebec in French first, and then branch out from there. We'll see.

For my part, I'm refocusing on things other than Wikipedia, so no more new articles for some time. But I will continue to maintain the Alexz Johnson article - no problem with notability there! (Her TV show is broadcast in 120 countries.)

JD Fan (talk) 01:41, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

The Obama Nation

Uh oh. I just noticed you declined a request to protect The Obama Nation, but I just granted four day dispute protection. I didn't notice the earlier denial until now, and Clubjuggle (talk · contribs) requested it again, about 5 hours after his first request. Would you like protection rescinded? —EncMstr (talk) 04:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

IP Exempt

Thanks man! Man with a tan (talk) 02:37, 20 August 2008 (UTC)