User talk:Postdlf/Archive24

This page 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.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32

No, don't try to use AFD to resolve normal editing decisions, such as moving, renaming, narrowing or expanding the scope of the article, etc. That's what talk pages are for, and it looks like you already have an RFC notice for it. I left a comment in the discussion after yours as to what impact I thought my close of the prior AFD should have. postdlf (talk) 17:53, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Haha, looks like I beat you to

It's okay; I'll get you on the next one. ; ) It's interesting how the AFD closing script I used dealt with it; it just wrapped it all in another set of templates instead of recognizing that there were already templates there by the time I clicked it. postdlf (talk) 22:10, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

High I was considering nominating Chris Alexander for deletion on the grounds of lack of notability (he edits a magazine and writes movie reviews for a free newspaper. Looking at the history of the page it seems that he more than likely created the page himself as "AlexanderEternal") as well as the fact I can't find any real reliable citations outside of horror blogs in regards to his notability. So my question to you is do you feel this nomination would be justified and if so if I can put up a template? (I've never nominated a page for deletion before)Giantdevilfish (talk) 22:58, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Have you read through

WP:BEFORE? It lays out the process you should go through to make sure you're not trying to delete an article that has potential. I found a couple more sources by doing a quick online search (part of the BEFORE process): [1], [2]. Fangoria is definitely something of an iconic publication, which other editors may also give some weight to. I think he's probably a borderline case as far as notability, but the article is definitely in poor shape at present. postdlf (talk

) 01:21, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Yeah I read through it and this is what leads me to believe the lack of nobility. I know Fangoria is an iconic publication, but I just don't think the guy who is editing it is. Rue Morgue magazine has actually been outselling Fangoria for the past decade or so but the editor of that publication doesn't have a wiki page. Taking over the editorial duties of an established magazine doesn't really make the editor notable unless he's goes beyond just being an editor or is influential in the genre. I came across a few articles about him but these are from mostly horror related blogs or websites that talk about the genre as a whole. These type of blogs/sites also talk to independent horror film makers, make-up artists, and countless other people who are into the genre but don't have a whole lot of notability in the process. His page basically reads as a resume more so than anything and there really isn't a whole lot that can be written about him outside of him editing Fangoria and reviewing movies for a free newspaper. This is why I was asking your opinion if putting up a template would be warranted. You are the second administrator who told me he's a borderline case.Giantdevilfish (talk) 15:25, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Let me put it this way: I wouldn't go out of my way to get it deleted myself, but I don't think anyone's going to yell at you for nominating it for deletion and it has a fair chance of getting deleted. One solution, however, might just be try a redirect Chris Alexander to Fangoria, as you don't need to go through a deletion process to do that. If you get resistance, that will give you some sense of how a deletion discussion might turn out. If you'd still like to try an AFD now, I'll help you with the process. postdlf (talk) 19:19, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

The redirection sounds interesting. Does this mean that when you click Chris Alexander, it automatically takes you to Fangoria essentially wiping Chris's page in the process?Giantdevilfish (talk) 15:44, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, the history of the page would remain intact, but functionally it would just bounce a reader to the Fangoria page whether they clicked on a

WP:ATD, regarding alternatives to deletion. postdlf (talk

) 16:00, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

OK I just did it. How does it look? This is the first time I did anything like this. I doubt anyone but Chris or one of his friends would try to undo my edit since his page hardly gets any activity.Giantdevilfish (talk) 16:12, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Yep, works fine. Feel free to contact me again if it ever gets reverted and we can talk about what to do next. postdlf (talk) 23:42, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Great.Thanks for all your help!;-)Giantdevilfish (talk) 15:57, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Just an update. Sure enough Chris himself showed up (I'm assuming its him since he claims as such) to contest the page being redirected. Whats worse he claims that I'm someone I'm not and that I have an agenda against him. So the redirect was reverted by another editor and now the page has been put up for a deletion nomination. Go figure.Giantdevilfish (talk) 15:49, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

At [3], your oldafd link was to the first one from many years ago not the current "(2nd nomination)" one. I fixed it while I was merging the new item with the old oldafd box (probably easy to overlook it there since it was subst:'ed for some reason). DMacks (talk) 06:26, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I use a script to automatically close AFDs, so I think it wasn't able to recognize the bare table code for the first oldafd box. It might have also gotten confused by the first AFD being under a different name. Thanks for catching that. postdlf (talk) 15:47, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Hey! You missed to remove the AFD template from the article of Mattiwade after you closed the AFD. I have done it now. Hope thats the only thing that was missed. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 09:51, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

That's weird...as I just replied to someone else directly above this, I use a script to close AFDs that does all of this automatically. It added the AFD record to the talk page, but I have no idea why it didn't remove the AFD notice from the article. It worked fine on several others that I closed as "keep" around the same time. I guess all automated tools have their bugs; this one seems to have issues maybe 1 out of a 100, though usually for identifiable reasons. Thanks for catching that. postdlf (talk) 15:51, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

you could have added 'knowingly false". No need to revert.

I've added a speedy delete request to the Commons image of Portnoy's Complaint cover. The stated reason that the image is in public domain is not very plausible. The text is in a special font, and the letters are carefully arranged vertically. Look at it slowly, and be impressed, especially the middle 'p' reaching down into 'Philip'. Short of explicit court rulings on this or similar looking covers, I consider the reason to be amateur lawyering at its most dubious. Choor monster (talk) 10:54, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I think you're the one who is "amateur lawyering", given that Wikipedia and Commons policy are quite clear on this type of image file, so you're trying to override that with your own personal (and incorrect) interpretation of the law (I'm not even the original file uploader here, so it wasn't my "lawyering" to start with).

First of all, you've misread the PD-text tag at Commons, which says "simple geometric shapes and/or text..." And text is all we have here, no matter how "carefully arranged." Read Commons:Commons:Threshold of originality and see the examples of other logos that are considered, by consensus interpretation, to be in the public domain—many of these are far more original than a "special font" with "carefully arranged" letters. Also read WP:Public domain#Fonts, which clearly states that typefaces are not copyrightable; a citation is given there to the regulation from the U.S. Copyright Office stating this. postdlf (talk) 12:34, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I concede. (I'm aware that fonts are not copyrightable.) I've stared repeatedly at the cover, and somehow it looks to me like the inclusion of and further arrangement of extravagant flourishes on the P,y,P,R is creative, but looking over the Commons letters of rejections, I suspect they'd think not.

Can you offer an opinion on File:Ring 1st American Edition.jpg and File:Spiral_American_1st_Edition.jpg? I suspect the uploader mistakenly thinks he is the creator, but are these perhaps public domain by default? Choor monster (talk) 18:02, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I think you are right about the uploader being confused about what authorship means.

I wouldn't presume File:Ring 1st American Edition.jpg to be public domain as it appears there's too much going on there, particularly with the skull & crossbones center graphic (though that might be no different than the standard icon upon close examination); I at least wouldn't tag it as PD myself. File:Spiral American 1st Edition.jpg is a closer case as it looks like it is just concentric circles and fonts despite the appearance of visual complexity. I think either might merit a deletion discussion to at least get some further opinions on the matter, even if ultimately kept, as they are at least far more borderline than the first image we discussed. postdlf (talk) 18:11, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

See

I look forward to your comments on the article talk page. --

Pointing to a guideline in support of your argument for removing a link does not entitle you to edit war to keep it removed, particularly not when you're arguing merely about the relevance of the link to the article, rather than something serious and urgent or based on a bright-line objective criteria. That makes this an ordinary editing dispute and

WP:3RR must be respected. Participate in the discussion about the link and leave the article alone for now. postdlf (talk

) 16:59, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

What entitles you to edit war?

Still looking forward to your joining the discussion. --

talk

) 17:01, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Ronz, I'm acting as an admin and warned you as an admin. I don't care about the merits of the discussion, and it doesn't matter right now whether consensus supports your opinion on the link after discussion. When your removal of the link was reverted, that's when you should have resorted to the talk page, and that's why I restored the article to that point. Instead you continued to revert it and have presumed you have a superior position that excludes you from having to observe rules of conduct when you are just in an ordinary editing dispute. If you revert again, I will block you for 24 hours. Or should I just protect the article to remove the temptation? I hope you will instead take a deep breath, try actually reading Wikipedia:Edit warring to better judge whether your conduct complies with it, and participate in the discussion. postdlf (talk

) 17:05, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

So as an admin, you don't have to follow the relevant policies and guidelines? I disagree. If you're unfamiliar with disputes over external links, leave them to editors and admins who do.

As an admin stepping in to resolve a edit-warring dispute, it is appropriate to warn all parties that are involved... Ah, there you go [4]. --

talk

) 17:13, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello. I am new here. Could you, please, help me in guiding on how to undelete/restore the page of Lorenzo iorio, an Italian physicist, or something else? Thank you. --87--Y-q (talk) 10:56, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

First, read through the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lorenzo Iorio (2nd nomination) and make sure you understand the reasons why the participants thought it should be deleted. If they link to a policy or guideline, read it as well. Next, read through Wikipedia:Reliable sources to make sure you understand what sources qualify as citations for information here on Wikipedia. Then read through Wikipedia:Notability (people) and Wikipedia:Notability (academics) to understand what kind of information we expect for an article about a person here. Then search for books, newspapers, journal articles, etc., that are about Lorenzo Iorio in some substantive way and that qualify as reliable sources. Once you have put that together and can make a cogent argument as to why Iorio passes our notability guidelines, post a request at Wikipedia:Deletion review that presents your evidence. postdlf (talk) 16:59, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Hey Postdlf. I just saw your comment here; "Wow, truly indiscriminate. I don't think I've ever seen such mundane information posted on WP. Delete per nom".

I'd like to ask that in the future you could try and keep your comments at AfD more focused. Statements like "I don't think I've ever seen such mundane information" may, in fact, be true - but they're not contributing to your rationale, which is presumably "Delete per nom". They don't serve a useful purpose - they just serve to potentially offend the article creator. I appreciate this certainly wasn't your intent, but I'd ask you to be more careful about what you say in the future. Ultimately what we want out of AfD is the article to be deleted or kept, as appropriate, and the user who created it to get a good idea of what they should do in the future to avoid AfD. Statements about mundanity don't contribute to either of those goals. Ironholds (talk) 23:01, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

That's an odd comment to make about the use of "mundane," of all words. Had I called the list "complete and utter shit", "a cuntrag of an article", etc., then you might have a point, as that would just be inflammatory and insulting. But an editor who would be offended at his article content being called "mundane", which just means ordinary or banal, would definitely be offended at "indiscriminate", which can mean selected without careful judgment or worse. So long as criticism at AFD is honest and directed at the content and not the contributor, it's not reasonable to expect everyone to walk on eggshells because someone might be offended that their content wasn't held in high regard, and certainly not to the level of finding a benign word like "mundane" offensive. And that we do consider some information too "mundane" to include in the encyclopedia is helpful guidance, as that's a lot of what

WP:NOT is about. postdlf (talk

) 00:47, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Totally, but then pointing to that policy directly, for example, is the helpful thing to do. I appreciate it was talking about the content rather than the contributor, but ultimately users are always going to be a bit possessive over content, because it's something they put time into. Comments directed at content can still hurt. Honesty is certainly good, but honesty should be constructive; "mundane" is honest - "mundane; we don't accept articles like this according to policyX, I'm afraid; you might want to give it a read" is honest and constructive. Ironholds (talk) 01:31, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

The AfD result was keep? Did the Admin notice that at least one of the commenter ( Publicindividual87) at AfD talk page was a confirmed sock puppet of Morning277? In fact the sock puppet created too many accounts to edit/publish. Will the sock puppet vote of AfD not violate Wikipedia policy and make the decision questionable?Sidv220 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:37, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Doesn't matter, because the remedy for dealing with sockpuppet participation in an AFD is just to ignore their comments, not to close it contrary to that sockpuppet's urging (boy, wouldn't that kind of rule just offer a gift-wrapped opportunity to game the system...). And omitting that comment, the keep !votes of Maury Markowitz and Ravenswing were sufficient to justify that close against the deletion arguments (not to mention there were

problematic comments on the deletion side as well). The sockpuppet's comment also merely repeated some of what Ravenswing had already said and so wasn't going to sway the result by itself anyway. postdlf (talk

) 15:21, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Nonetheless, can that comment be struck through and the fact it's by a sock-puppet be noted? —rybec 15:33, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for enlightening me. Sidv220 (talk) 15:39, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

@Postdlf:Hi Postdlf, are you willing to strike through the sock-puppet's comment in the AfD? —rybec 04:28, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Why do you think that's necessary at this point? Feel free to do it yourself. postdlf (talk) 16:40, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

I asked because I thought it would carry more weight if it came from you, also because I wasn't sureit was okay to do that after the discussion was closed. , and because I don't know what template is used. The reason I asked is that people often review these discussions when an article is brought to AfD again later. Anyway thanks for answering. —rybec 22:01, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi. You deleted the page about the "Tynwald Hill International Tournament" because you ranked it as "non-notable". Thought this tournament was not non-notable in the eyes of millions of fans. The live streaming of the Tamil Eelam games reached about 50,000 people all over the world and there are plenty of articles about that. Probably it was just quoted badly, but I would be happy to fix that. Here is a short selection of media coverage: http://www.manx.net/tv/mt-tv/watch/56446/football-tournament-final http://www.iomtoday.co.im/sport/football-news/st-john-s-and-occitania-to-battle-it-out-in-final-1-5832099http://www.iomtoday.co.im/sport/football-news/occitania-win-tynwald-hill-international-football-tournament-1-5833792 http://www.tamilguardian.com/article.asp?articleid=8248 http://nonfifafootball.blogspot.de/2013/06/tynwald-hill-tournament-official-preview.html http://nonfifafootball.blogspot.de/2013/07/tynwald-triumph-for-classy-occitania.html http://transtamils.com/tamil-eelam-football-players-arrive-in-london-for-tynwald-hill-tournament/ http://samtravelled.blogspot.de/2013/07/all-things-tynwald.html

There are about 114,000 hits on google and it was without a doubt the biggest football tournament outside FIFA this summer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DJLiesel (talk • contribs) 12:31, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I see at least a few of those pages are personal blogs. Please read Wikipedia:Reliable sources, and then explain which, if any of these sources, satisfy the criteria there and why. postdlf (talk) 21:08, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

ok. I really don't get this system of deletion. 3 people randomly say something is non-notable and it is deleted and than I have to proof that it is not non-notable. Strange "justice", but probably that is according to Wiki Rules. I am not an expert on Wikipedia and thus do not know that. Anyways, back to topic. The following links are from "News Organizations": http://www.manx.net/tv/mt-tv/watch/56446/football-tournament-final http://www.iomtoday.co.im/sport/football-news/st-john-s-and-occitania-to-battle-it-out-in-final-1-5832099 http://www.iomtoday.co.im/sport/football-news/occitania-win-tynwald-hill-international-football-tournament-1-5833792 http://www.tamilguardian.com/article.asp?articleid=8248 http://transtamils.com/tamil-eelam-football-players-arrive-in-london-for-tynwald-hill-tournament/ http://uktamilnews.com/?p=18548

Then we have a leaflet published by the Isle of Man Parliament: http://www.tynwald.org.im/about/tynday/TD2013/Documents/2013Leaflet.pdf Is that enough ? Or do you need the other 114,000 google hits, too ? There are about 50 private blogs, 20 betting agencies, all FAs playing there and many Isle of Man newspaper reporting about it. Besides you can see every goal, the anthems and much more on youtube. If that helps I can also make a picture of the printed 2 page articles in the Isle of Man main newspaper for you ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DJLiesel (talk • contribs) 16:26, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I've asked for some input here from editors who focus on football articles, so let's see if they have anything to say. I was merely the administrator who closed the discussion based on what the participants said and have no special knowledge of or interest in this. And while the participants in a deletion discussion are expected to make some effort to judge an article's notability, ultimately if you want it kept (or now, after the discussion has been closed and you want it restored) it is up to you to establish that it passes our guidelines. Without that process and that expectation of documenting notability, every one would be using Wikipedia as Facebook or to advertise their companies. postdlf (talk) 16:45, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Sure, I fully understand the reason why getting it back needs some proof. I am not really understanding why it was deleted that quickly after 2 or 3 people marked it "non-notable". The main problem is that the author of the article and of course many others involved in this tournament have been on or at the pitch when the discussions came up. So there was not really a chance to stop the deletion for those involved. Anyways, thank you for getting football people involved to "judge" on its legitimacy now! Where can I see the results of that process ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DJLiesel (talk • contribs) 17:21, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I invited them to this thread. And please indent your comments when you are replying to mine, and use ~~~~ at the end of your comments to sign your posts. Haven't you noticed the "unsigned comment added by" tag that keeps getting added to your comments? As an aside, I can tell you that continuing to ignore such things tends to signal to others that you're not really interested in learning anything about Wikipedia and how it works, but instead just here to advance a pet topic, which doesn't help your case. postdlf (talk) 17:26, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

OK thank you for the hint. To be honest I did not know that indenting my comment is necassary. I thought mine are not and your are. But it makes sense when more people join now, thanks a lot! And I did not realized the signing thing. Why are you so offensive to me? I am here for both: Getting back an article about a wonderful think of cultural based football tournament and to learn how all this deletion, restoring things work. I am very willing to write a couple of articles on my own in the close future and just do not want the same mistakes that the author of the Tynwald Hill Football Tournament did, which led to deletion DJLiesel (talk) 17:53, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

A non-notable, local, minor tournament - I suggest taking it to DRV but the deletion should stand. GiantSnowman 17:56, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Is there any reason why you think so ? What is local about a tournament with national teams ? What is minor about a non-FIFA teams with 6 teams if even the World Cups have just 8 usually ? It would be amazing if you could somehow argue why the deletion is justified.DJLiesel (talk) 18:02, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

==Deletion review for Tynwald Hill International Football Tournament==

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Tynwald Hill International Football Tournament. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. DJLiesel (talk) 20:11, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

which states "a movie title and a year IS a citation, as those are works no less than books, and are reliable sources for their own content and credits". If this is a matter of policy/guideline, it would be helpful to me if you would post here the Wikipedia pages that apply in the case of citing movies/TV/video content as stand-alone reliable sources. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 21:43, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Are you honestly asking me for a policy stating that a movie is a reliable source for its own credits? That we don't need to cite to Roger Ebert, for example, repeating that Michelle Williams played Marilyn Monroe in My Week with Marilyn, when that is verifiable from the movie itself? Or perhaps I misunderstood your comment. postdlf (talk) 23:01, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, actually, in this case I honestly am. And I am not being snarky, I really want to know how your edit is based on policy. I have a lot of Movie/TV/media/celebrity articles on my Watchlist, they seem to attract various types of editing, some of which is great and some of which is barely/poorly sourced/fancruft. That entire section that you removed the template from has two references, but virtually no references other than the asserted claims that all these media representations are of Marilyn Monroe or are of people who resemble her or are homages to her or whatever. Are they all based on her? Well, there's no independent sourcing of that statement. What's to stop someone from posting possibly false information stating there's some media content that's based on Marilyn Monroe if WP doesn't require independent corroboration of that claim? I don't know, it's late, I'm tired and it just seems somewhat important to me. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 03:43, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

You're equivocating the difficult cases with the easy ones. Yes, if a character is merely an homage, that's something a source external to the work should verify because that probably isn't going to be evident drom the work itself and requires interpretation. But if a character is actually playing Marilyn Monroe (or in the case of Smash, playing an actor who is playing Marilyn Monroe), that's evident from the work itself and requires no interpretation. So answer this, why would you be unable to verify that Michelle Williams literally played Marilyn Monroe in My Week With Marilyn (or even just that the film included a portrayal of her) by reviewing that movie and its credits? Walk me through your thinking. postdlf (talk) 14:07, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not saying that it is impossible to watch a movie or TV-show and see that there are certain parts with certain actors playing them...for instance, you can use a business' website to cite certain facts, such as the address or the company officers, so self-sourcing is permittable within Wikipedia for statement of facts. But when the reader goes through that section, how does the reader know all of those media-portrayals are related to Marilyn Monroe? Hypothetically, let's take a look at the Madonna/Material Girl line...there are no references for that statement, the reader has never seen either the Material Girl video or the "Diamonds are a Girl's Best Friend" dance number from "Gentlemen Prefer Blondes"...so shouldn't that line be referenced? Media-related articles, about actors or directors, about movies or TV shows attract some of the poorest editing I see around Wikipedia. It is a slippery slope if the incipient linkfarms that can form within a Portrayals section are allowed to proliferate with no checks and balances of reliably-sourced references. If it is Wikipedia guideline/policy to not require references or citations about statement of facts regarding media, that's fine....a link would be helpful, that's all. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 00:39, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Why are you not expecting that hypothetical reader to consult the "Material Girl" music video or Gentlemen Prefer Blondes film, regarding a claim made about the content of either of those works? That's what "verification" means; the reader consults the source referenced to verify whether it supports the fact the article asserts, whether that source is a book or audio-visual work. If we were instead talking about a list of biographies about Marilyn Monroe, wouldn't you expect a reader to actually consult those listed books if they want to verify whether they are actually about her? postdlf (talk) 01:59, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Ok. Re: Madonna/Material Girl/Marilyn Monroe: what is the source that all three are related, which states that Madonna's video is an homage to the Monroe performance? If it is the media itself, then that would seem to be in error...the media states nothing, it merely exists - the viewer can possibly watch the different media and make up their own minds but if WP editors state that the media is related would that then seem to be veering into OR-territory? If a critic stated that these three are related or if there are interviews with Madonna that state they are related etc., that would probably be appropriately-sourced. Another characterization in the Portrayals section is stated as Monroe being played by a Holly Beavon in the "James Dean" film, but that role is apparently uncredited, so the media, in this case a TV-movie, can't prove the assertion anyway. I have always thought we are supposed to attempt to source judgements about media (who is it about, what does it relate to, what is it based on, etc) from something other than the media itself. For instance, I might *know* that the final train sequence in the 2013 "Lone Ranger" film is based on the train sequence in Buster Keaton's "The General" from watching both films, but unless a published reliable source says so, I really should not place that information into a Wikipedia article. In the same way, I might know that an uncredited TV-film role is supposed to be Marilyn Monroe or I might just know that a blonde waitress in "Pulp Fiction" is based on her, but if a newspaper or magazine or other source do not state that is the case, then that information is not reliably-sourced enough to be in a Wikipedia article. Shearonink (talk) 05:04, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

"What about these less objective, more interpretive assertions about these works of fiction?" What about them? You're going far afield from the question that started this thread and the answers I have given you. Is a movie a reliable source for its own content, such that simply identifying the film can be a citation for verifiable statements made about that film? Yes. Now you seem to have slid into "Is a movie a reliable source such that simply identifying the film is a citation for any possible statement made about it? Obviously not, and obviously that's a different question. And you haven't answered any of my questions along the way (none of which were rhetorical) so I can't see what you agree with at this point and what you don't yet understand.

It's always a question of whether the statement is verifiable from the work itself or constitutes possible OR interpretations, regardless of whether we're talking about a book or a film. So tag as "cite needed" specific things (i.e., not the whole section) like the uncredited role by a relatively unknown actor that can't be verified from the TV movie itself (though it may not be ambiguous whether the role is supposed to be Marilyn Monroe even without the credits), but not the portrayals that are unquestionable because it's what the film's credits say or it's otherwise objectively clear (i.e., it is unquestionable even without the credits that Smash is about people making a broadway musical about Marilyn...and not just because it's one of the least subtle shows I've ever seen).

Though the relationship between two works poses a more difficult problem than just giving a literal description of one work, and you should normally expect a secondary source (unless, of course, the credits expressly identify "adapted from X" or whatever), I'd still place the relationship of "Material Girl" to Gentlemen Prefer Blondes in the "unquestionable" category, as the costumes of Madonna and Marilyn are identical, the costumes of the men in tuxedos and even the prop hearts they hold are identical, the set design is identical or nearly so, and even much of the choreography is repeated. You only need eyes to see that relationship; the music video literally copies most elements of the film's musical sequence. I'd personally consider a challenge to that obtuse pedantry (akin to someone demanding a citation for the fact that this painting depicts the American flag), but whatever, that's easily sourceable (you're probably not going to find a source talking about the music video that doesn't mention its inspiration) and not worth fighting over if you want to add a citation for that, however superfluous. postdlf (talk) 16:13, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

The reason I *asked* was because I was interested in your reasoning behind removing that template from the section.

So, my original question was asking you to explain why you removed the maintenance template and asking for the WP policy-guideline that backs up the assertion regarding a 'movie is a reliable source for its own content and credits'. That a book or a movie or other created content is used for elements of plot, names of characters, author and other points of fact is not the issue, it was never the issue for me, I stated so above. Pardon my sliding, but my issue with the template being removed from that section is that Wikipedia is stating certain things are *so*, that all the media portrayals listed in that section are about a certain person, that they are all related to a certain person, that they are homages to a public persona and the section is basically unsourced. You have explained above that you think specific 'cite needed' tags or that referencing each statement/line would be better than a refsection tag since the majority of media portrayals are named in the individual media-creations as Miss Monroe.

I appreciate your taking the time to answer my concerns however superfluous and pedantic they might have seemed. Shearonink (talk) 17:53, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your correction of my vote. I didn't realize that it was a duplication. --

Would you consider relisting this as several of the keeps are problematic?—Ryulong (琉竜) 21:02, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, after nearly two full weeks, your deletion nomination had no support and there are two solid keep !votes from longstanding contributors even ignoring the other two substanceless comments. postdlf (talk) 01:44, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

It just seems odd that that is the threshhold now, as I had pointed out that one of these editors in good standing actually filled the article with material that is contra to WP:BLP.—Ryulong (琉竜) 06:49, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

If you're talking about the incorrect magazine cover attribution (I'll take your word for it that it was incorrect), 1) no one else commented on that accusation, 2) it could have been an honest mistake (and you should

assume that absent evidence to the contrary), 3) I don't see how that rises to the level of a BLP concern instead of just a garden variety factual error, and 4) it's irrelevant to the AFD anyway whether the other editor made a factual error in editing the article when that particular (incorrect) fact wasn't even mentioned in his keep !vote, let alone relied upon as a rationale. postdlf (talk

) 19:53, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	For all your work with AFD over past days and weeks Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:48, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Can you offer your opinion regarding the Infobox photo discussion here? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 19:15, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi, again. Sorry to bother you, but another photo (more like a new set of photos) has been found and uploaded, and added to the choices in the discussion. A new issue is which photo those who participated before that photo was added would have favored had they seen it, so I'm requesting that all those who did so view the photo and indicate whether or not their favored photo has changed. Thanks, I really appreciate. Nightscream (talk) 02:12, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

You deleted this article that is an important article in the Australian Paralympic 'movement wikipedia project supported by Wikimedia Australia. The article had several sources and the person is regarded as an important person in Australia. Please reinstate the article. I added additional references after the first note re deletion. talk

A file that you uploaded or altered,

Hello, Postdlf. You have new messages at Koavf's talk page.
Message added 20:21, 31 July 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:15, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I just wanted to thank you for getting involved in the discussion regarding image deletion on Justin Koavf's page. I appreciated your attempts to moderate the discussion but from the way that he responded to my statement (which was a bit terse on my part) I could see that I'd be wasting my time. I can understand that the images may not comply to the requirements but the way that it's being handled is part of the problem. Nobody wants to feel like they've wasted their time and effort on this site and I imagine that most people would wonder why, after all these years, is this an issue. I noticed, for example, others had brought up taking the matter to the Village Pump for wider discussion but were rebuffed by him. He's probably 100% right in his actions but taking the extra time for extra discussion wouldn't have been a bad idea for the sake of peace. For myself, being told in what comes across as a smug, chiding manner about image policy and where I should have uploaded a certain image years ago reinforces my decision to keep a low profile. Shinerunner (talk) 23:35, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I notice that your image of the Plato's Stepchildren kiss was kept. There were many good references for the importance of that image. However, if you anything about the context of this image here feel free to add it to its wikipedia article. I believe the crystal entity was ravaging a planet and killing people when this image was uploaded but I can't say for sure right now. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:07, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

At that AfD, a number of people noted that

• I'll give you an opinion as an editor now, though my only judgment in the Mission Junction AFD was as an admin closing the discussion and not of the content of that article itself. The current state of your Naud Junction article seems too thin to satisfy GNG, and it doesn't appear to even be verified that it was really an "area" or neighborhood, but just an intersection, about which we should probably expect more to be said if it's to merit its own article. One problem I'm having is that the LA Times links are all to a university library system that requires a login (and so not useful here even as convenience links), but judging from how you've used those sources they don't seem to be significant coverage of the location or "area" itself (and maybe the boxing pavilion itself merits an article instead?). And the California index link is not a link to results but just the index search page. The two Index results that come up when I do a search are of unidentified authorship, and I don't know how indiscriminate that source is as far as inclusion; at best the Index only verifies that it was the name of an intersection. So I wouldn't be surprised to see Naud Junction get deleted at AFD (or redirected to an appropriate parent article) unless it can be developed further. postdlf (talk) 16:19, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I'm looking to get in touch with the author of this image. If it's you, could you email me at [email protected]. Thanks! Annabicycle (talk) 16:24, 13 August 2013 (UTC)annabicycle

@Annabicycle:, could you link to the specific image you're talking about? I've uploaded several of that subject, but I know at least a couple other people have too. postdlf (talk) 18:14, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Sure:http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Columbus,_Ohio_Doo_Dah_Parade-2011_07_04_IMG_0161.JPGAnnabicycle (talk) 18:25, 13 August 2013 (UTC)Annabicycle

Yep, I took that. Why do you ask? postdlf (talk) 18:47, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm working on a small project, and this photo would be great to include. You would retain all ownership, but I'd need written permission from you. If interested, would you email me so I can tell you more about it?Annabicycle (talk) 14:50, 14 August 2013 (UTC)Annabicycle

Sad to see that you considered the argument for deleting Brenda Venus and decided to keep this nonnotable article. It's a vanity page. I contacted her before putting the AfD template on the page and requested that she provide more sources of information, that it shouldn't be so promotional. But my email to her didn't garner the results that I thought led to a more valuable page. And since she is in her 60s, that cheesecake photo from the 1970s seems patently ridiculous. But I was just one vote. I would think the almost complete lack of interest and response to this AfD would have led to a Delete.

Can I ask what factors weighed into your decision to keep this article? NewJerseyLiz

There was no other way to close it but "keep". Even after the AFD was open for 19 days, nearly three times the normal duration, not only did no one support your deletion nomination but two experienced editors gave reasonable arguments for keeping. postdlf (talk) 01:31, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I just wanted to point that you seemed to have missed the fact that the article on Jeppe Højbjerg was also under consideration, when you closed this afd. Cheers. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:10, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, got it. postdlf (talk) 17:15, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I am fascinated by the story. I think a lot of people are. What was the harm in leaving it up? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fernloft (talk • contribs) 19:16, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Why did I delete it? The link to the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Morgan Perry is in the deletion log entry for a reason. postdlf (talk) 19:19, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi postdlf, I wanted to ask if you would revert deleting the page for "Jess C Scott," for my reasons listed here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jess_C_Scott — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elfpunk (talk • contribs) 20:58, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

No. I'm not going to play this game, particularly not within the same week it was deleted. Take it to Wikipedia:Deletion review if you honestly believe you have a case (which appears doubtful), and be thankful you're not getting blocked for disruption this time. postdlf (talk) 21:34, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I am not playing games; merely following Wiki's guidelines and suggestions for improvements to keep a page on re: citing credible/reliable sources. If I have a doubtful case, I would like to know the reasons why so that I can further improve a particular page, whether that takes a day or several weeks/months. Elfpunk (talk) 23:07, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Jess C Scott. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.

Sorry, wasn't trying to step on any toes. I was under the impression that the block ended the discussion. GregJackP Boomer! 19:47, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

No problem, normally it would. postdlf (talk) 20:45, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

You may be interested in the deletion proposal related to Category: Professionals. Regards, XOttawahitech (talk) 18:01, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

	The Hard Worker's Barnstar
	Pretty busy day at the CSD corral. I noticed you helping a lot.SPhilbrick(Talk) 20:20, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

You blocked this user last summer. Their request...well it isn't great but they seem to have some sort of comprehension of why they were blocked. I'm thinking

I don't see the point in wasting more time on him. This happened over a year ago so the details aren't exactly fresh in my memory, but looking back over it now it seems pretty clear he was obsessively focused on one topic, yet showed a deep lack of understanding of that topic or in discussing it (to the extent that other editors thought he might just be trolling); and when stymied by clear consensus resorted to edit warring, content forking, and sock puppeteering to try to get their way anyway. This was their entire history on Wikipedia. postdlf (talk) 21:40, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

What do you think of declining with {{

talk

) 23:56, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Works for me. postdlf (talk) 01:36, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Until filming has commenced and an actual title is known, what would you think of my pro-actively redirecting the many searchable titles as I suggested at the AFD? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 19:11, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm all for gratuitous redirecting. postdlf (talk) 19:39, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

In this case it may prevent early recreation under other sourcable titles, thanks. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 05:48, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Category:Sportspeople in Columbus, Ohio, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. ...William 20:51, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi. I've created

I saw you deleted a recreation of this. I voted in favor of deletion in the May 2012 discussion but there is an argument that subsequent coverage has made her notable, I'd like to request an undeletion to subject the new version to a new AFD?--Milowent • ^hasspoken 21:08, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I think DRV is the proper place to present that evidence, rather than another AFD. postdlf (talk) 21:58, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

• Why? The prior deletion was correct, there's no need to revisit that decision, even though it really didn't have a consensus to delete, it was fine for the time.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 03:52, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Because we already have a community judgment that this subject should not have an article, and so the burden is on those who want to assert that something has changed since the AFD. DRV is the best forum for that, and it just creates a mess to unilaterally recreate something, argue over whether it's speediable, and then deal with an AFD that will necessarily cover the same ground as the first one. DRV will force the focus to be on just what's different now and how that changes the application of policy. postdlf (talk) 04:07, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
• Postdlf, I have recreated the article and sent it to AFD immediately (partially per WP:REFUND on the message here, partly because it was a bad deletion: neither this nor the other speedy deleted version ("Second Version") is a "sufficiently identical and unimproved copy" under CSD G4 to the version deleted through AFD ("First Version"). G4 is not a "never write an article on this person again" criteria, it's meant to avoid having people reinsert the same article from offwiki sources every single time. Please feel free to contribute to the deletion discussion if you feel the individual still does not meet WP:1E is not notable per BLP1E. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:13, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
  • • Precisely! My ire was indeed aroused. An evening's hard work reduced to a redlink. :/ Well thankfully Crisco has undone your unfortunate speedy deletion. And Crisco, I assume you meant "still meets WP:1E". :P Peace, ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 09:20, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
      • Meh, got rid of any ambiguity. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:22, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
• Well, I'm glad it worked out somehow, we'll see what happens. Sometimes DRV does make sense but after a decent period of time my judgment sometimes says a 2nd AfD is preferable. If she'd been deleted in multiple AfDs, I might agree.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:27, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
• I am reminded of the Corey Worthington case. How many times are we going to have to delete articles on Valerie before people give up? Having a manufactured look doesn't make you anymore notable than throwing an epic party. All it does is get you in the press. Chances this afd will result in deletion? Near zero. Another epic fail for Wikipedia. <sigh>. Crisco, you were out of line with
  WP:RAAA. There was no emergency to this; you could have discussed this with Postdlf rather than simply announcing to him you were undoing his actions. Disagreeing with Postdlf's actions doesn't make you anymore right or wrong than he is. Undoing his actions without discussion with him was a poor decision. --Hammersoft (talk
  ) 13:51, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks. Ironically, I think BLP1E was misapplied in the first place, though I still believe DRV was the proper forum to challenge that, or to argue that recreation should have been permitted. But instead of discussing that point further, we got...whatever this was above. postdlf (talk) 14:29, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
    • Hammersoft, RAAA says, and I quote, "good cause, careful thought, and (if likely to be objected to), where the administrator is presently available, a brief discussion with the administrator whose action is challenged". I considered the reversal carefully and gave a good cause (a misapplication of G4). As for how the application of the correct criteria (even Post is saying BLP1E is likely incorrect) is a failure for Wikipedia, please privy me to your thought process.
    • Post, I am not assuming bad faith when I say the deletion was incorrect under G4. It's possible that you looked at the version which had been deleted under CSD the first time (not the AFD deletion), in which case your reasoning that the content was not quite different would be correct (though I disagree that the content is what is being addressed by G4; substantially similar would, in my opinion, be closer to the wording; in this case the version deleted at AFD was nowhere near what was G4-ed both times [see links above]). DRV could have been possible, but I argue (and was under the understanding at the time) that G4 is not necessarily an inherently "controversial" deletion process. There was a request here, so (under this understanding) per REFUND an undeletion without going through DRV was acceptable. Now, we just let the community decide (I'm neutral, will make that explicit at AFD). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:14, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
      • Crisco, you can quote the regs all you like. My point is there was no pressing emergency. You could have taken the opportunity discussing the issue with Postdlf rather than just unceremoniously dumping his decision in favor of yours. As I said, simply disagreeing with him doesn't make you right. You were out of line, pure and simple. Undoing another admin's actions is a frequent hot button in disputes. It was wholly unnecessary to have been done in the manner you chose. I'm not suggesting you should be admonished, brought to whatever absurd noticeboard, etc. Rather, next time choose to discuss rather than the path you chose. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:30, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
        • I agree with Hammersoft's characterization here, and so does
          WP:REFUND, for that matter: "requests for undeletion is not a replacement for deletion review. If you feel an administrator has erred in closing a deletion discussion or in applying a speedy deletion criterion, please contact them directly. If you discuss but are unable to resolve the issue on their talk page, it should be raised at Wikipedia:Deletion review, rather than here." So next time, I hope that's how you handle a disagreement with a speedy deletion. You might have convinced me to change my mind, but we'll never know now.

          On the merits, I simply don't see how the recent version of the article cured the reasons why it was deleted, and that's what I expect to see for a G4 not to apply. It wasn't deleted for failing GNG, and I see no new assertions of fact beyond the scope of the original, just some additional news coverage of the same thing. The substance was the same regardless of whether the form was. And whether the original application of BLP1E was incorrect was a matter for DRV; we should not unilaterally disregard a prior AFD just because we disagree with it, but instead discuss overturning it in the proper forum. postdlf (talk

          ) 17:10, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
          • That (qualifying for G4) was my concern as well. Is it a line for line copy of the previous deletion? I presumed as much the answer to be no. If G4 only means it is an exact copy of the prior deleted version, then only admins would be permitted to even tag something as G4 because they would be the only ones who would be able to know. The reason I tagged it as G4 was because as you note the content of the article was substantially unchanged; no new facts were presented, no new claims to notability that pass other notability standards, just the occasional reference in press about the same material for which the article was previously deleted. Whether an administrator agrees with the original AfD is at this point immaterial; the CSD-G4 is valid, and restoring it after the G4 deletion was a failure of process. Had Crisco done it in agreement with Postdlf, it would still be a failure of process that overrode the decision of admin
            WP:DRV, where it should have gone, would result in it remaining deleted. --Hammersoft (talk
            ) 18:58, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
            • Post, it seems to me that G4 could be made more explicit what is intended. I will be posting at WT:CSD for that. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:48, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

• One point I might add while y'all debate the finer points of procedure -- It is very common for articles like this one to get recreated without any DRV, and to stick around, either not being challenged, or surviving in a 2nd AfD because press coverage over time has erased the primary initial deletion rationale. E.g.,
  Donna Simpson (internet personality). Gate-keeping on "tawdry" popular subjects usually works for passing fads like Corey Worthington and the helicopter cat, but not subjects like this model.--Milowent • ^hasspoken
  13:52, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

) 22:49, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Request of the restoration of the page entitled "Chris Kendall"

I would like to request the restoration of this page because Chris Kendall is clearly one of the most notable British youtubers and comedy vloggers, he's channel is the 90th most subscribed channel in the UK. He is an professional actor who appeared in several TV productions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Corinfd (talk • contribs) 12:11, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

And why do you believe that addresses the reasons why the article was deleted? How can you show he meets notability guidelines? postdlf (talk) 13:17, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Toro Negro State Forest category

Thanks for the info; I wasn't aware of it but it seems logical. Is there an easy way to remove all animals (and plants I believe you also meant) from that category? Better yet, is there an easy way to "dump" them into List of fauna of Toro Negro State Forest which I could then edit and fix up manualy? Thanks! Mercy11 (talk) 16:13, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Let me see what I can do... postdlf (talk) 16:23, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

...Okay, thanks to the (dangerous) power of automated tools, I was able to quickly generate a list from the category's contents and then empty it. I saved the list to User:Mercy11/Toro Negro, so you can develop it there in your own user subspace until it's ready to be moved into article space. Let me know if you need help with that when the time comes. Thanks for your understanding and your efforts here, @Mercy11:. postdlf (talk) 16:39, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! this works for me. Lists are done! Regards, Mercy11 (talk) 17:06, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I see you also removed the cats from EACH of the articles like in a minute. Wow!!! Thanks a lot - that was going to take me forever manually...then I saw you had done them all. Once more, thanks for helping out! Mercy11 (talk) 01:28, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

ITN credit

On 16 September 2013, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article 2013 Colorado floods, which you substantially updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page.

--Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 21:14, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

(Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dick Grote)

Hello: I have read through the discussion on the Articles for Deletion/Dick Grote. I believe I fully understand the reasoning for deletion of the wikipedia page. I have been requested by Dick Grote to fix his Wikipedia page. I am very new to wikipedia and I do not want to do anything incorrectly. I have been re-writing the content with as much correct references, and citations as possible. Once I am finished, how should I go about getting the new article approved and submitted to Wikipedia without risk of deletion? Mxmadness101 (talk) 20:30, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

First, read

WP:COI. Let me know after you've done that and how you think that might affect your intentions here. postdlf (talk

) 20:33, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly. Dick is a close friend of mine. That being said, I don't want to violate policies or create/modify an article to appear as promotion. I do realize that the original article had virtually no citations or references and was heavily biased. I want to help him out by modifying the page so it not only fits Wikipedia's, but is informative, comprehensive, and is a productive article to be on Wikipedia. Mxmadness101 (talk) 20:53, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Have you read

WP:RS, regarding what citations are acceptable? Why do you think Grote merits an article, based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines? postdlf (talk

) 21:06, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I have browsed through both

WP:RS and WP:Biographies_of_living_persons. I understand I need strong reliable, credible and verified secondary sources, as well as inline citations for the material. As far as merit, I believe Grote has created several groundbreaking and effective solutions to many problems in the work place, as well as has a track record from many companies to prove such. He has been pivotal in the business management industry and has created a lot of unique methods for dealing with management personnel and performance. For any company or business wanting to know about some of the most up to date, unique, and effective methods of performance management, as well as who/how they were created, there is a strong possibility they would want to know about the methods that Grote has created. Mxmadness101 (talk

) 21:21, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

That sounds like promo-speak, not anything concrete. What are some of the reliable secondary sources that establish his notability, per

WP:N? postdlf (talk

) 22:19, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

CipherCloud

Hello. I've written a new version of

talk

) 02:12, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello, again. Not having heard from you, I am making a new page for

talk

) 17:08, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Thought you should know there's a new version up now. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:34, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. But I think there are enough new sources (and ones of higher quality) that weren't in the deleted version that I'm not personally going to speedy delete it as a recreation contra the AFD (which also had very low turnout). If you think the current article is still a problem, I think a new AFD is the best course. postdlf (talk) 21:03, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

talk

) 13:50, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

As he hasn't done anything else to complete the nomination, I just removed the incorrect tag and posted a comment on his talk page about what tag to use for a second nomination if he actually wants to follow through. postdlf (talk) 15:27, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

There is still a tag on the article's Talk page.

talk

) 18:55, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

That's a record of past discussions, not a tag for a current deletion nomination. postdlf (talk) 19:09, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

re:hiibel v nevada

Hi, You reversed to additions I made to Hiibel v Nevada. I added essential material from the case because I think the conclusion in the paragraph is disingenuous. First off, there is no citation, so the entire section is an opinion of an opinion. I find it odd that a reversion would happen so quickly on a section of an article that is defective by Wikipedia standards.

However the opinion leaves out the key observation of the court regarding claim. That is, He didn't make one with the required factual specificity. The statement "Furthermore, the officer’s request that Hiibel identify himself did not implicate Hiibel’s Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination." is not true. The court said he failed to give a reason HOW disclosing his name would incriminate him.

"As best we can tell, petitioner refused to identify himself only because he thought his name was none of the officer's business. Even today, petitioner does not explain how the disclosure of his name could have been used against him in a criminal case. While we recognize petitioner's strong belief that he should not have to disclose his identity, the Fifth Amendment does not override the Nevada Legislature's judgment to the contrary absent a reasonable belief that the disclosure would tend to incriminate him."

The paragraph leads readers to believe what the police and the Arizona Legislature did was A-Ok as opposed to Hiibel screwed up his claim by failing to articulate his reasoning. Not that I can imagine how he could articulate his reasoning on how his name would incriminate him without that articulation itself being incriminating.

Needless to say , nothing in the last paragraph is a "holding of law" or even dicta. They simply noted he didn't meet his legal burden of showing "a reasonable belief that the disclosure would tend to incriminate him." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.126.227.4 (talk) 22:09, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

That suggests that the Court left it an open question as to whether someone else can claim merely giving a name is self-incrimination, even under the same NEvada law, which would mean nothing was effectively resolved by this case except Hibel's personal fate. This is your personal interpretation and not one supported by reliable sources, and thus

WP:OR. postdlf (talk

) 00:19, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

sorry about the confusion

Hey sorry about the confusion, glad you found a reliable source. I only updated her article cause I saw it on the deaths page. I really didn't know anything about her. P.J. (talk) 02:26, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Postdlf. You have new messages at Talk:Energy_Independence_and_Security_Act_of_2007.
Message added 22:43, 24 September 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Precious

Court case information box
Thank you for your "Big Fat" contribution Court case information, for quality images of animals, plants and arts, for taking care of articles for deletion, and for noticing ownership, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:07, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

CfD

This whole process is getting frustrating. When I try to succinctly summarize the issues, people attack me because they say "you did not explain it". On the other hand, when I go into all the factors, like Scotsdale being a place where many people only have partial residence, where many people retire, where they go after they acted, etc., than people claim that I am "including too much fluff". The whole process is frustrating. Even at that, some statements get attacks from both sides.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:36, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I'd ignore the "you did not explain it" comments as often being more a question of "I don't agree with your explanation". So you can't really avoid that. But I think you shot yourself in the foot in a couple different ways that made these discussions more difficult. One, you didn't focus purely on the problem of the intersection of the occupation with the unrelated locality, but instead kept sliding into critiquing the broader issue of who is "from" a certain place. Which really is not germane to whether "sportspeople from Foo" is a useful category because we're still going to maintain the "from Foo" connection for those articles by upmerging them to "people from Foo". Second, your insistence on removing categories while these discussions were still ongoing has raised a lot of hackles, particularly as your judgment regarding inclusion criteria is often narrower than other editors' and you have persisted even after complaints and requests to hold off while the CFD was open. So in the future, I'd recommend staying focused only on the issues necessary to deciding the CFD, and not uncategorizing articles during a CFD. postdlf (talk) 21:00, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Nice close at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles Bruce (physicist). Bearian (talk) 17:03, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

The Richard Aguirre article. I will be working on it and will have it up to standard soon. Mr. Aguirre is a Candidate for California Governor in 2014 and a significant member of the San Diego political community.

Please assist in undeleting the Richard Aguirre article. I will be working on it and will have it up to standard soon. Mr. Aguirre is a Candidate for California Governor in 2014 and a significant member of the San Diego political community.Mr. Aguirre is also one of San diego's most prominent Stand up paddle surfers & has over 220,000 followers on twitter and the internet. This and his internet presence justifies him as being notable enough for wikipedia standards. Any assistance will be very appreciated. Wikimikesd (talk) 18:24, 8 October 2013 (UTC) Here is a link to the article; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Richard_Aguirre_

Read

reliable sources (i.e., not the candidate's own website), then post a request at Wikipedia:Deletion review. postdlf (talk

) 18:36, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

"also one of San diego's most prominent Stand up paddle surfers" -oooooohhh, impressive! --Orange Mike | Talk 18:39, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Aguirre (4th nomination), despite the name, was actually the fourth time this article was created and deleted; and User:Wikimikesd seems to be the worst offender (we didn't even bother with a full-blown deletion procedure for Richard aguirre). What is your relation to Aguirre, Mike? --Orange Mike | Talk 18:46, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I have no relation to him just hoping for the best for California. I really like his platform and will do all I can to get it out there for the people. I changed it to a individual article not a political. And you don't need to be rude. I am just trying to right the article. Compared to half of the people on this site, Mr. Aguirre is much more of a prominent figure. 220,000 followers is not enough on twitter. Interviews on Top LA Political radio shows... It seems you have something against Mr. Aguirre... Do you work for the Jerry Brown or California Democratic Campaign? I will get this article fixed and undeleted with or without your help. You have guys on here with a tiny internet following who have fought 1 fight and lost. Notable??? Also. amongst the 5 million surfers in the world, he is impressive... If you were not just a bot you would see the true merit and not try to continue to stifle his actions. He does more for the people of California than you will ever do for even yourself. Stop being such a hater in life, there are aolt of great people who will be the subjects of the future of our world you are trying to stop their message. Is wikipedia short on Space? Let the people see the candidate, and judge for them selves. How many people follow you on twitter? And you decide notability. You sound like you are on a power trip.. Get back down to earth, and off your computer for a day. But I guess without wiki you would still be the nobody you are. 20:03, 8 October 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikimikesd (talk • contribs)

It has repeatedly been established that Aguirre is just another wealthy businessperson running for office, repeatedly and so far unsuccessfully; he meets neither

Wikipedia is not here to promote your cause, however noble you perceive it to be. --Orange Mike | Talk

20:42, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

How did you come to these conclusion? "It has repeatedly been established that Aguirre is just another wealthy businessperson running for office, repeatedly". You must have some one else in mind. Mr. Aguirre has only run for office once, and does not seem to be very wealthy. He does have a very large following but I don't think he is very wealthy. I have seen him around town a lot and he is definitely not. You should not pass judgment with out your research. YOU SHOULD KNOW THAT BEING AN EDITOR OF THE FACTS... LOL You seem very biased, or just jealous of people trying to make changes to life not just wiki... I am sure you will know about him in the future and feel like an idiot for your judgement skills. I will get the article fixed and published. Thank you., Mike Wikimikesd (talk) 17:14, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

There have been four deletion discussions for this topic already. Reposting the article again would be clearly

disruptive, and will result in your account being blocked, unless you first get a consensus at Wikipedia:Deletion review to overturn the deletion or to otherwise permit recreation. If your only interest in Wikipedia is to keep pushing for Aguirre to have an article, you should go elsewhere. postdlf (talk

) 17:27, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Infobox photo consensus discussion

Hi. Can you offer your opinion on which photo would be better for the Rebecca Housel Infobox in this discussion? If you are unable to, I understand; you don't have to reply to this message. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 03:36, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Evan Dimas Darmono AfD

Hello, could you please delete the other three articled listed in this AfD Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 21:15, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for pointing those out. postdlf (talk) 21:19, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

My restrictions

I'd like to be able to edit categories again. How can I go about this?--Levineps (talk) 15:45, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

This is ground we've already gone over here. There's nothing I can add to the comments there. You've shown no sign of learning from past experience or anything anyone has ever told you. Next time you violate your restrictions, I'm supporting a community ban. postdlf (talk) 16:54, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

We'll I'm obviously trying to avoid that and that's why I want to regain full status on this board. I'm willing to do what it takes.--Levineps (talk) 17:09, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

And judging from what everyone has said to you in ANI thread after thread, what do you think it will take? postdlf (talk) 17:11, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Being more careful on my part, I realize I was reckless in the past. I'm hoping to get another chance. I don't believe I should have lifetime restrictions. I'm willing to have a more open mind this time around. Again, I apologize for my past actions.--Levineps (talk) 17:20, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't see how any of that addresses the comments others have made, but that's been typical for you. Not violating your restrictions is necessary but not sufficient. postdlf (talk) 17:35, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what else I can say, just let me know what I can do however. I appealed on that board once again, you sent a link to once again. I'm optimistic, that I can be given a chance to prove myself worthy.--Levineps (talk) 17:48, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

You posted this to an archived page. Not very "careful". I'm not wasting any more time on you. postdlf (talk) 17:52, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I thought that was where I was supposed to post and there was no malicious intent whatsoever. Is there someone else I should take this up with?--Levineps (talk) 17:55, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Books and Bytes: The Wikipedia Library Newsletter

Books and Bytes

Volume 1, Issue 1, October 2013

by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs)

Greetings

Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list

. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved...

New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian

Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted.

New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis??

New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges

News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY

Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions

New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration

Read the full newsletter

Thanks for reading! All future newsletters will be opt-in only. Have an item for the next issue? Leave a note for the editor on the Suggestions page. --The Interior 21:56, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Sound Familiar

Perhaps this set of Star Trek image deletion requests sounds somewhat familiar? Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 02:22, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the deletion of the Wikipedia page on "The Concise Encyclopedia of Supersymmetry"

I write concerning the deletion of the Wikipedia page on "The Concise Encyclopedia of Supersymmetry", whose maintainer was S. Duplij. I believe that the deletion was unwarranted -- although this is a specialised subject, there is a wide international community of researchers interested in extensions of the Standard Model of elementary particle physics, in which context supersymmetry plays a central role. This subject has become very multi-faceted, however, and beginning researchers have difficulty integrating the diverse knowledge needed to do active research. For this reason, an encyclopedia such as the one referenced in the deleted page is very welcome. Wikipedia should not be comparing such resources to popular literature, and the criteria for noteworthiness relate mostly to the research community involved. Kstelle (talk) 14:23, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

None of that is really a response to any of the comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Concise Encyclopedia of Supersymmetry, which, incidentally, clearly analyzed the book as an academic work, not as a popular one. As was noted in the AFD, you are free to use this book as reference material for expanding other articles. But books don't merit their own articles just based on what those books are about. postdlf (talk) 20:31, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

inherit

Since you previously expressed an interest in this inherit case.[5] --

talk

) 17:48, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Scope and title for Bisexuality in the Arab world

During the recent AfD for Bisexuality in the Arab world (closed by you as 'keep') you will either have seen opinions expressed to expand the scope of the article, or voiced that opinion yourself. I am placing this notice on the talk pages of all who expressed an opinion of whatever type in that deletion discussion to invite you to participate in a discussion on article scope and title at Talk:Bisexuality in the Arab world. You are cordially invited to participate. By posting this message I am not seeking to influence your opinion one way or another. Fiddle Faddle 10:32, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Denver Daredevils edit

Hi there! I'm a college instructor and my students and I have been working on editing Wikipedia pages as practice for a larger project they will do. You recently reverted our changes to the previous version of the article, and I wondered if you might tell us why so we can get some feedback. We aren't questioning the fact that you did, but would like to know why so we can learn from the experience. Thanks very much!

Twomilkmaids (talk) 18:01, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Similar to your other edit discussed below, your edit just added code for generic examples of image galleries. It was not a constructive addition to the article, but instead appeared to be just experimentation with editing. postdlf (talk) 17:34, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Reverted Edits on John C. Moore

Hi again! This is also another section my class and I edited that we would appreciate some feedback on as to why it was reverted. We'll gladly work on the issues with what we added if you can tell us what they are.

Twomilkmaids (talk) 18:04, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Your edit didn't add anything constructive and appeared to be just a test edit. It duplicated the reference already present in the article, adding it again after the navigation template (which just links to other articles, and so doesn't need a reference anyway), and added code for a generic image gallery with example images. Please experiment with test edits in the

WP:SANDBOX, not in articles; and use the "show preview" button when you are editing articles to see how you are changing it before you hit "save page". postdlf (talk

) 17:32, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I apologize if this is slightly annoying, but a little clarification would go very far for us so that we don't make unsubstantial edits in the future. My students, from what I supervised, added informational content to this (and the other) edit. In this case, it was information about what John C. Moore's administration accomplished during his time as mayor. So I'm a little unsure as to whether this received a blanket revert because the content was not sufficiently backed up. The image issue may have been beyond our skills at the moment, I admit, and will use sandbox for things like that in the future. Our eventual projects will be confined to constructive , copy-editing, adding substantial and important information to stubs, or translation where needed. Many thanks again. Twomilkmaids (talk) 21:33, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

NOTDIR question

Since you made this change [6], I thought you might be equipped and willing to explain why

WP:N

treats the content of articles.

• WP:N
  refers only to admissibility of articles, but explicitly excludes itself from restricting content of articles. That is, articles whose topic and majority of content meets GNG can include content which has not itself risen to GNG notability.
• WP:NOTDIR
  seems to be written to exclude any content that is verifiable in notable reliable sources, but is itself not notable. This would exclude non-linked or red-linked entries in comparison articles, even though it is a common, pre-existing, guideline-permitted (See {{WP:CSC]]#1&#2), and LfD-kept practice of mixing both bluelinked items, and redlinked-but-multiply-reliably-sourced items.

Please note that I'm an inclusionist who insists on verification with reliable sourcing, and multiple reliable sourcing. In a lot of cases, even this level of verifiability doesn't rise to GNG.

Example: Comparison of S.M.A.R.T tools which has been the subject of deletion of unsourced entries (which I agree with), and deletion of multiply-RS-sourced-but-not-yet-GNG entries (which I disagree with).

One of the points made by the primary deleter is that the Comparison is a "directory". But the directory exclusion refers mainly to lists of businesses, which makes sense in the context of a phone directory or a mall directory. In my opinion, if the Comparison were printed out sans title and shown to people, and asked "List, directory, or comparison?", that nobody would call it a directory.

The other deletion reason claimed is that NOTDIR requires notability for all content in a list. But this is directly in opposition to N, which doesn't, for content of articles. Another admin I chatted with could not explain, but only reiterate that "notability for items in lists is required". I really need an explanation, because this fundamental dichotomy is resulting in the decimation of reliably-sourced content, and long fights, and LfDs based on sketchy foundation, and which result in "keep" anyways.

The Comparison in question is not "indiscriminate", IMHO, because its inclusion criteria is clearly stated in the title. In the diff above, I also attempted to include further clarification of inclusion criteria (per WP:LISTS), but that was deleted as well, with a rather false and insulting edit summary. I think refinement of the inclusion criteria is still required, to emphasize S.M.A.R.T. tools which are solely based on S.M.A.R.T., and do not simply include it as a component in software dedicated to some other purpose, like backup or compression.

I hope to get NOTDIR clarified so it matches reality, because it states as present-tense fact that (essentially) "Wikipedia contains lists of notable topics with articles", but the reality is that it actually also contains: lists of topics which do not meet

WP:GNG

but are multiply reliably sourced.

I couldn't find discussion about restriction of content of lists. I agree with curbing abuse, and curbing indiscriminate lists. I couldn't find discussion about the change you made. One thing I've advocated on an ongoing basis is sourcing for policies arrived at by discussion, essentially including inline citations pointing to the establishing discussion diff.

Full disclosure: there was focused, but mostly civil (if not courteous) discussion at

WP:ANI#Process jumping, forum shopping, and even though I invited the deleter back to compromise discussion here

, but discussion has stalled both on Talk and at ANI.

Consider this an invitation to either respond here, or jump in at Talk(to address the core question of inclusion of content) or at ANI (to voice whether I was wrong about the discussion was being procedurally wrenched). But please, read everything, noting that I'm not a rampant inclusionist, but I have a legitimate concern about deletion of relevant, reliably sourced content. --Lexein (talk) 00:18, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

FP Nomination

Hi,
I am Benison. I have nominated your

talk with me

13:46, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Hope you'll support the picture...

talk with me

11:31, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Potential sockpuppet of Levineps

Recently, User:Oriole85 (contribs) has been sporadically popping up on my watchlist for category-related changes. A lot of new users do that, so it wasn't a particularly noteworthy thing for me. But then he kept showing up with a higher frequency, oftentimes making (what I thought to be) completely unnecessary over-categorizations to articles. I've been on Wikipedia long enough to know that User:Levineps (contribs) is one of the most notorious over-categorizers we've ever seen (and has the community sanctions, block records, and bans to show for it). So, I did about two minutes' worth of research and discovered that Oriole85's account was created / his edits began on November 5, 2013. When was the last edit by Levineps? November 4, 2013. That is not a coincidence IMO. I don't have (a) the time right now, nor (b) the motivation to formally open an SPI, but I'm hoping that one of the many people I'm notifying about this does. If you're wondering why you're being pinged about this, it's because I saw where you were one of the people who has left messages on Levineps' talk page at some point regarding his inappropriate editing. So now, in addition to all of the aforementioned issues with Levineps, it looks like a probably sockpuppet to throw into the mix. Jrcla2 (talk) 05:27, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library Survey

As a subscriber to one of

The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c}

15:56, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Primecoin

I was a bit surprised to see this closed as keep. I had been watching the conversation, but had not formed a strong opinion on the topic. I don't think that any of the keep arguments were valid. They were all simply statements of

WP:ITEXISTS. Given the low quality of the current comments, I had expected to see the debate relisted. Pburka (talk

) 00:36, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

• You might have a point there. I'm fine with undoing my close and relisting. postdlf (talk) 01:00, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I appreciate the work that AfD admins do. The volume of work must seem overwhelming at times. Pburka (talk) 04:03, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

At least one week deletion discussion, please

There are of course pros and contras. The discussion suddenly began two days ago and I just gave this further discussion argument:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_quadratic_irrational_numbers_set_in_a_systematic_order&diff=586370658&oldid=586362297

Please restore the discussion therefore. --MathLine (talk) 18:54, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Problem is, nothing in your comment is a substantive or relevant response to the deletion arguments, so I have no reason to believe that leaving the discussion open for a full week would produce a different consensus (which is what

WP:OR means here. I suggest you focus on smaller edits to articles for now, until you are more familiar with how Wikipedia works and what content the community considers appropriate, and make proposals for larger additions you wish to make on article talk pages. postdlf (talk

) 20:45, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

In my comment I for example also refer detailed to

WP:CALC

?

The topic is not any invention of "some" people in this world, it is basic math and routine teaching matter for millions of people around the world, so this question now to you, postdlf:

Which of the three grammatical sentences in

WP:CALC and these periodic continued fractions which "are ordered firstly by the sum of all for their notation necessary terms, then lexicographically and then by the begin position of the period from left to right" (cited from my comment) violate it? --MathLine (talk

) 00:36, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

MOS:LAW#Article titles

State of Florida v. George Zimmerman was proposed to be renamed but failed. I don't get the inconsistency and the guideline. --George Ho (talk

) 04:06, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

"I don't get the inconsistency" seems to be a recurring issue for you regardless of the subject matter. I thought you actually had a substantive question about case names, not just your usual complaint that different editors weigh the application of a subject-specific MOS and

WP:COMMONNAME differently to different articles. Welcome to Wikipedia. postdlf (talk

) 01:54, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

What about "State of"? There are no other articles titled this way. --George Ho (talk) 01:56, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I'd personally support omitting that, but I can see why it wasn't. "State v. Zimmerman" is how it would be cited within the Florida court system, but that would be ambiguous outside that context. "Florida v. Zimmerman" is appropriate, but then given that this subject is known to a lay audience from mass media, and known by George Zimmerman's full name, that might be less helpful to a reader. So we then slide into the full formal name of the prosecution, even if not exactly necessary.

Bottom line though, it seems like there is a lot of frustration expressed at the talk pages for these articles over repeated rename attempts, and so that might be why some of the options were rejected even if otherwise reasonable. The human factor seems to be one you have trouble understanding in this context, because you seem to always be frustrated that guidelines are not somehow automatically applied. postdlf (talk) 02:04, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Does renaming one case affect other cases? Why or why not? --George Ho (talk) 03:38, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

That's too vague for me to know how to answer it. postdlf (talk) 19:21, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Just one more question: is titling worth fighting for or against? George Ho (talk) 20:53, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Not in these cases. Except for the Microsoft article, they're not how I'd title them, but there's nothing wrong with their current titles. They are not inaccurate or ambiguous. So we're left with nothing but disagreements over trivial style formalities, and so if a rename is controversial there's really little to gain by "fighting" about it. postdlf (talk) 15:46, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Infobox Photo Discussion

Hi. Can you offer your opinion in this discussion regarding the better photo for an article Infobox? Thanks, and Happy Holidays. Nightscream (talk) 23:37, 26 December 2013 (UTC)