User talk:Quarl/Archive 2007-01

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Quarl talk

Neutomic Keyboard (AfD discussion)

Thanks for closing out this AfD. However, I notice that the other mentioned articles and categories - bandmember and all their albums - were not deleted. Um... would you take care of them too? -Freekee 04:33, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Oops! Thanks for letting me know; I've deleted the rest. —Quarl (talk) 2007-01-01 04:42Z
Thank you very much! In the future, I'll try to list them more prominently. Happy 2007! -Freekee 06:43, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Cheers —Quarl (talk) 2007-01-01 21:54Z

Polycephaly

Regarding your edits to Polycephaly. Thanks for your contributions, but do please try to use fewer edits - it's difficult to follow nearly 150 edits and your edit summaries don't really summarise what it is you've been doing. Cheers. violet/riga (t) 09:09, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, and I'll try to use less edits. For now I guess you can just use the history tool to do a long-range diff. —Quarl (talk) 2007-01-01 21:54Z

WRT54G firmware articles

Afd debate said redirect to WRT54G for

openwrt - quite sensible. But several have been reverted since, by different people, and some then back again. Seems to be a problem. Perhaps the redirect should go direct to the 3rd-party firmware section so it's clearer what's gong on? Also some of the items there could then be very slightly more informative, e.g. I've added link to Tomato manual at Wikibooks - the original article would make a fair intro to the manual, actually, if the author wanted to add it there. Mjwild
09:29, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, though the objection that DD-WRT is not only for WRT54G is understandable. As I stated at Talk:DD-WRT, I suggest a new article Aftermarket wireless router firmware or such to merge information from these. —Quarl (talk) 2007-01-01 21:49Z
That objection applies equally to Tomato (runs on Buffalo) and I'd guess most of the others. I don't see any comment on this in the deletion debate, though - was it raised elsewhere? My point really is that whatever the treatment is, it needs to be consistent. The issue with an Aftermarket wireless router firmware article is that it might well become a place for debate between the adherents of different firmwares somewhat as happened with the Sveasoft article, which would help no-one. The place Tomato has arrived at, to have a "User Manual" at Wikibooks which can contain unlimited detail, seems a good one. On process, what's the appropriate mechanism for a debate on a collection of articles? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjwild (talk • contribs)
I don't think "the editors of that article would argue if we merged" is really an argument against merging. In fact, it's an anti-argument. The reverse, splitting an article on one subject into two articles from opposing viewpoints is called "POV forking" and is considered a no-no. If you want, you can nominate all of them in a group nomination (see
cent}}, though the scope of the debate would have to be much wider than 10 or 20 articles (for example a proposal for merging all non-notable software and firmware products to a page describing the software category) to merit an announcement there. —Quarl (talk
) 2007-01-02 09:43Z
Thanks - I'll think on that. Would it be a good idea to populate Aftermarket wireless router firmware first, at least with headings and text copied from the present articles? No point doing a lot of work ahead of a debate, otoh it might help to have the proposed alternative to look at at least in draft. If I do that, is there some tag that would save it from being e.g. speedied pre-debate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjwild (talk • contribs)
I would recommend writing two or three paragraphs, then it wouldn't qualify for speedy deletion at all, and it would be a good place to merge those articles - ideally it won't be just a concatenation of all those firmware articles onto one page, but rather a synthesis of the general ideas and trends, with specific firmwares mentioned as examples. In that case a merge/redirect from the individual firmwares might not be controversial and won't have to go through AFD at all. —Quarl (talk) 2007-01-03 00:27Z



The Football League 2005-06 (AfD discussion
)

I don't think there was consensus to merge. You have 1 for keep, 1 for delete and 2 for merge. 2 is only 50% of the vote. Kingjeff 03:13, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for writing. Including the nomination, there were 2 recommendations for outright deletion, and 2 for merging, so 4 that wanted the article gone. You were the only one wanting to keep the article as is. I stand by the closure, but you can have the decision reviewed at
WP:DRV if you wish. —Quarl (talk
) 2007-01-02 03:40Z

Jancey Sheats (AfD discussion)

I protest the deletion of the Jancey Sheats page. What makes any other news anchor notable? Jancey is a major newanchor for central Arkansas, and that along is notable to the people of this state. I feel the man (who is a news programer) must have some bias against Miss Sheats and as such that was the reason for his recommending her deletion. Otherwise you should delete most of CNN, network anchors, or Fox News. One does not make one more notable than the other. I request immediate advocacy in this matter. Kerusso 04:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for writing. I have undeleted Jancey Sheats and reopened Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jancey Sheats (I concede consensus was thin), but I doubt the result of the debate is going to change. —Quarl (talk) 2007-01-02 05:58Z
Hey, Quarl... I don't wish to press the matter, but have we established a consensus for this article? (If not, no worries.) Amnewsboy 09:19, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Well you guys insisted on a deletion, and no matter what, you had your mind set on deletion. Guess wiki is not as open as promoted. I will be dropping out of all editing, advocacy work, and certainly will have my family retract their support due to this. Kerusso 15:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Erik Bornmann (AfD discussion)

My vote wouldn't count anyway, as I was outnumbered, but I'm one of the few people knowledgeable about the material in the list; I was prepping my AFD statement since being unblocked this afternoon (I was blocked unfairly, and on a vague technicality, which had the effect of preventing me from getting at the AFD while it was up, as it was placed by the same admin at the same time as I was blocked; in response to her advice to "cite my claims" I was holding off until I had the time to mine the records of the article for the instances of rascalpatrol's and his allies' vandalism, threats and insults towards other editors and edits in the past; the rest of my position is explained in the following bit, which I was going to post before bed tonight after digging out the needed cite-links; the redirect will wind up being ended when the trial begins in a few weeks and Mr. Bornmann's name is all over the papers (again), so at least as I can see from what is now the redirect page that the file-history of their censorship/cover-up efforts hasn't been erased, as it would have been had the page been deleted My unposted AFD statement on Erik Bornmann is as follows, FYI:Skookum1 09:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep, Restore, and Protect This article’s uncensored, un-neutralized comments constitute valid encyclopedia content regarding an important current legal case and political scandal which is in the news on a regular basis. I feel the suggestions to delete are redirect are based in the manipulated, “neutralized” content (to use rascalpatrol’s term) and I also feel rascalpatrol’s post above is manipulative and deceptive. Issues of core wiki pillars – censorship and freedom of speech – are critical in determining the value and survival of this article and those connected to it. It is not incidental that the “neutralizing” camp here has counterparts on
BC Legislature Raids is a non-starter because each of the principal players in the case will (eventually) have as detailed an account here as well, although rascalpatrol et al. maintain that Mr. Bornmann has been singled out – again, allegedly by people hostile to Mr. Bornmann at a personal and partisan level. My only partisanship here is in the interests of open democracy and preserving the public record from being “massaged” by p.r. campaigns, and if this case was about NDPers, Tories or Greens I would have the same position (just to prove I’m fair I’ll go look around Robin Blencoe and Glen Clark and see if anyone ‘’there’’ has done similarly partisan whitewashes of BLPs such as this article has become; although as I recall anti-NDPers have worked over those and similar pages at length….). Admittedly Mr. Bornmann is and was not an elected official as with other political bios; but he is still a prominent party supporter/activist as well as a corporate lobbyist involved with the sale of public assets and with companies doing business with the government – and the sale of assets in questions was and is a highly controversial sale the debate over which is still on the public agenda. And, to be quite frank, the entire scandal is framed by mounting allegations of a cover-up, and the mutilation of this article as well as the circumstances/consequences of the AFD should be considered in this light; deletion would be a cooperation with politically partisan cover-up efforts as much as tolerating the existing censored version of the page. It is not only Mr. Bornmann’s reputation that’s at stake here, it’s a matter of the public record and of civil democracy. Only POV material on Mr. Bornmann should be deleted; NPOV,citable material should be restored, ‘’and protected’’.Skookum1
09:06, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for writing. I have re-opened the debate so that you may make your statement, though I suggest you shorten it so people will actually read it. —Quarl (talk) 2007-01-02 09:20Z

Thank you for the opportunity to post a follow-up comment, and I will shorten it (it's why I had it in *.doc format); I'm naturally prolix; I'll post it in the morning/afternoon, as I would like to provide cites to the edit history of the deletions and threats/insults made as suggested by Zoe (I think that's what she was suggesting, on my talk page (last bit of that section). The snipe on the article's talk page about "our little gremlin is back again" and that I should "get a day job" was about me, by the way (although I own't bother citing it as it's trivial), as they think I'm a returnee from earlier edit wars; in actuality I only came across this article this last week...such nastiness and paranoia is typical of their edits, comments and edit comments...). Look for my follow-up tomorrow, and I know other BC editors are interested/alerted but, given the New Year, they haven't responded yet, if they're going to. But again, thank you and I'll be on this when I get up tomorrow (it's 1:25am in my timezone and I've been doing history writing and BC Wikiproject templating all day....).Skookum1 09:26, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you again for extending the AFD, as it gave me time to ref all my cites, although rather than shortening my post it wound up longer :-| but to good effect, I think, as you can see from the subsequent comments and votes on the AFD. One big question/problem, though, other than the fact of there being at least three apparent sockpuppets or at least handful-of-articles-on-the-same-topic SPAs who've "voted", is that - as I knew a while ago but ignored and "got around" (hence my previous problem, as I confronted rascalpatrol about his conduct on his webpage...) - is that the sig-link he's using does NOT go to User:rascalpatrol but to User:rascalpatorl instead. He must be hand-typing his sig, rather than using the four tildes. Not sure what that's called, but it's definitely willful deception and seems like an abuse of Wikiquette, and not in a small way. I'd comment on it but I've said enough already but as you are one of the two admins who've been by the page, I'm bringing it to your attention and asking either what to do about it, or for you to forward it on for investigation by the appropriate department/panel.Skookum1 08:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Just to note I was mistaken earlier about the sig on the AFD going to the wrong userpage; it was his sig in the Erik Bornmann talk page that goes to "rascalpatorl" = http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rascalpatorl&action=edit (that's a "copy link" right-click from his sig on the talkpage). I'm pretty sure it did the same from the AFD page earlier when I tried it, but it didn't do it now; there's no changes in the edit history that I can see, so I must have been mistaken in thinking I tried it from there. Still, deception in sigs on a talkpage is a serious issue; also pls see Sockpuppet report by User:Bobanny. Also the template at the top of the talkpage saying the decision was made is still there, despite your reversals on the main page; should it still be?Skookum1 09:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Question Regarding relisting AFD's

What are the steps you use to relist for more debate? Thanks in advance for your help Navou talk 09:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Navou, the instructions are at
WT:AFD). —Quarl (talk
) 2007-01-02 10:06Z
I would like to see non-administrators relisting, experienced wikipedians should be able to tell when an article is not generating consensus... however, non admins relisting may be something that does need to be discussed, so I will bring the discussion to the talk page. Additionally, is there any way I could get my hands on that script? Thanks again. Navou talk 10:25, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I can see for discussions where after five days no-one, or maybe only one person, has commented, that would be an obvious relist, otherwise it's a grey area since the admin has discretion. Anyway, get consensus at
WT:AFD before doing it :) The script is at http://www.cubewano.org/wpt/scripts/xfdclose.js. —Quarl (talk
) 2007-01-02 10:31Z
Site seems down, I'll recheck tommorrow. I'll prolly get the discussion started tommorrow as well. Thanks for your help. Navou talk 10:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
I can't seem to get it from that site, could you email it to me by chance? Navou talk 21:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

AFD

I did? Are you sure? I reverted Saturdays AFD list because a random IP tried to list "Snow pea" (or something like that) on the Saturday AFD list on monday. I thought i only removed that one item. If by some fluke i screwed up, i'm sorry. dposse 15:33, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Denton Bible Church (AfD discussion) on deletion review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Denton Bible Church. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jorfer (talk • contribs)

Thanks for the note. —Quarl (talk) 2007-01-03 00:50Z

:-)

subst:smile3
}} to their talk page with a friendly message.



Happy editing!!!--

Sign Here
 02:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your support

Thank you for your support in the RfA on my behalf. It is an honor to have received your expression of confidence. To be chosen as an administrator requires a high level of confidence by a broad section of the community. Although I received a great deal of support, at this time I do not hold the level of confidence required, and the RfA did not pass. It is my wish that I will continue to deserve your confidence. Sincerely, --BostonMA talk 19:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

You helped choose
WP:AID
winner

 Thank you for your support of the
status
.
Hope you can help.

AzaBot 21:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

TrekBBS

I'm not sure how this is done, but I'm just a user who's noticed that almost all references to 'TrekBBS' have been edited out of the main Trek areas. The original article is just gone, and the paragraph in Trekdom has similarly been edited away. It seems to a lot of people that someone has it out for 'TrekBBS' and that's not good, especially considering they are a large part of Trekdom, and at least deserve more than a passing sentence in that article. The TrekBBS is notable, and I know there's information out there to verify that. And the only reason I'm asking you is that you seemed to be the one with his head on straight in all the discussions on the subject, whereas most seemed to be pining for deletion for whatever reason. Sorry to bother you, hope you have a good day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.68.14.178 (talk • contribs

)