User talk:Ron Ritzman/Archive 11

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Archive 5 ← Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 → Archive 15

Deleted Pseudoscience Page Comes Back to Life

A Wiki page entitled CrossFire Fusor, that was deleted in October 2010, as a result of this AfD debate:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/CrossFire_Fusor

now appears to have come back to life, in a new page here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CrossFire_Fusor

As discussed in the AfD, the above page appears to be pseudoscientific nonsense, strung together by a 42 year old guy named Moacir L. Ferreira, from Curitiba, Brazil, who has a degree in computational science, and clearly a very active sci-fi imagination.

Another apparent bit of pseudoscience by Moacir L. Ferreira implanted on Wikipedia can be found here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase_Displacement_Space_Drive

These pages should be nominated for deletion.

Clearly there is an intent to populate Wikipedia with his self-published pseudoscience.

Drgao (talk) 08:45, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Message to 50.99.244.233 wrt Kunjaliyan

The article was not deleted. It was moved to the

film has not yet been released. If I had not done this then the article most likely would have been deleted. The article is at Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Kunjaliyan. You are welcome to work on it there and when the film is released and/or it gets more coverage then it can be moved back into article space. --Ron Ritzman (talk
) 23:22, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Amyabaker/Noddle
Anthony, you were involved at
User talk:Amyabaker/Noddle. I think the full protection in this situation is uncontroversial enough that you can unprotect it yourself. I will have to log off soon, and I'd like to post the changes now instead of later. Cunard (talk
) 09:10, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I'll trust Anthony's judgement on this matter but normally it's reasonable to protect pages that are temporarily restored for DRV. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:27, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I understand that pages restored for DRV are generally protected. However, because this was a speedy deletion, and because I had addressed the speedy deletion reason with a rewrite, I think it was a good application of unprotection. Cunard (talk) 15:15, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

An AFD you closed was restarted two days later

You closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World of Books Ltd as No consensus, and Phearson, who said delete in that debate, two days after your close opened a new AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World of Books Ltd (2nd nomination). Can you speedy close this and warn him of the rules? Dream Focus 00:14, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

While I didn't say "with leave to speedy renominate", there wasn't a lot of participation in the first AFD so let's let this one run its course. What would help is if you or another one of the "keep" !voters could find another
supersource or 2 to compliment the one found in the first AFD. --Ron Ritzman (talk
) 00:38, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

AbleNET

Please userfy deleted article under User:Lexein/AbleNET. --Lexein (talk) 02:11, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

  •  Done. As a side note, I'm sorry that this had to go. I was quite active on IRC back in the day and there should be room for verifiable sourced articles on these IRC networks that have been around for a while but
    the community has spoken. --Ron Ritzman (talk
    ) 00:28, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. It is as I thought, one of the deprecated sources, IRC-Junkie.org, is actually a reliable source due to expertise (see WP:WikiProject IRC/Sources and RS/N. During the AfD discussion this was misrepresented by the nom as "a blog". Is this grounds for deletion review? Anyways, I'll source the thing further. --Lexein (talk) 05:50, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Question regarding delete

Hello ron, im sorry, i fail to see why you would delete my wiki.

The result was speedy delete. I'm going to close this as a CSD G11 so if someone wishes to write sourced neutral article on the subject they may do so. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:37, 1 September 2011 (UTC) [edit] 4pm 

   4pm (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)
   (Find sources: "4pm" – news · books · scholar · free images)

Blatant advertisement for a non-notable company. No third-party hits on Google, and article cites subject's own website and non-English references as sources. sixtynine • spill it • 14:57, 25 August 2011 (UTC) 

   Delete 95% of the content as blatant advertising. This is basically a sales brochure for the product. After that, I'm not sure whether it meets wp:notability. North8000 (talk) 18:08, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

First, non-notable company? What, just because we are a start-up we are not allowed to post on wikipedia? Im sorry, but if you consider our wiki blatant-advertising, take a look at any other software on the list comparing project management sofware, the wiki i set up was absolutely no different from any of the others. Article cites subject's own website: again look at the list of comparable project management software, but if that is a problem there is absolutely no problem for us to delete that reference.

In essence, could you please explain why you are deleting our wiki while keeping comparable others online.

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Satejb (talk • contribs) 09:29, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I deleted it because it wasn't an "article" it was an "advertisement". Also, per your use of "we" and "our" above, it's obvious that you have a serious
other similar articles are concerned, I can't comment or take any action on them unless they are nominated for deletion. --Ron Ritzman (talk
) 13:38, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Deleted cristian ceballos

Hi,

You have deleted the page on Tottenham footballer cristian ceballos. Not sure why you have done this as the player is of similar noteriety to many other young footballers whose pages are still in tact. The player is of particular interest to Tottenham Hotspur fans for whom he signed this year — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.24.205.8 (talk) 20:07, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

If you click "afd" above, you will see that there was a discussion where it was decided that he isn't notable yet. If I hadn't deleted it another admin would have. However, if you still think he's notable and know of sources that demonstrate that notability that weren't considered in the AFD, you are welcome to
have the decision reviewed. --Ron Ritzman (talk
) 00:44, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Deleted Yael Meyer

Hello,

Almost a year ago, you deleted the article I created for Yael because of lack of independent reliable sources. Now she's much more notable and I have sources to fix it, can it be temporarily undeleted so I can do it?

Thank you,

Gottlieb (talk) 20:50, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I've just sourced the article. Can I ask you to please help me check if everything is ok now? How do I present it to "Deletion review"? Thanks again. Gottlieb (talk) 05:00, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I've done it for you. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:13, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Afd mistake - unlisted

Hi, could you advise/help with this? The nominator of WP:Articles for deletion/List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people (5th nomination) apparently didn't list it, so it's overdue for closure - I'm unsure if it's appropriate to insert it after the fact. Thanks, AV3000 (talk) 14:27, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I've already fixed it and relisted the debate but if any admin wishes to close it now, they can do so. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:14, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

DARE Championship

Would it be possible to consider restoring this please? I think I was at fault for using the official homepage instead of links to articles in third party news sites for my sourcing, I have only been editing wikipedia for a few weeks and didn't realize that news sites were preferable to homepages. DARE have recently announced that they have secured a million dolars in prize money

Bellator Fighting Championships. I would respectfully request that you restore the DARE Championship and DARE Championship 1/11 pages and I will ensure that they are amended to include more reliable news sources instead of relying primarily on the DARE homepage, which I realize in hindsight was an error Sadoka74 (talk
) 18:45, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! But I need your help!

Thanks a lot for considering my request and restoring the page of

Mahan Mitra
 ! I am very new to wikipedia as a user. So, please let me know the reason it is still showing 'This article is being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy.' on the top of the page of Mahan Mitra?? What I should do to protect the page forever? If you can reply to me in my email address [email protected] I will be much obliged. Because I dont know how to come back to this page again? Anyways, thanks a lot again...

Soumya Dey.

--Soumya.sxccal (talk) 21:37, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

notable enough for an article at this time. If you disagree then you need to make your case in this discussion. --Ron Ritzman (talk
) 01:38, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Article recreation

User:Cirt is listed as the deleting admin for Instantbird. The article has been recreated, and 3 RS considered reliable in the topic fields of software, new software releases, and messaging clients have been added. I'm notifying you per the deletion log notice and per your interest in Cirt's AfD's mentioned here. --Lexein (talk) 15:18, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Looks like
Spartaz was the one who moved the userspace draft back to mainspace. I trust his judgement. --Ron Ritzman (talk
) 02:26, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Right user, other direction, but thanks for reminding me to check the logs in future! The red "this article was previously deleted" header block (while recreating the deleted Talk page) specifically recommended notifying Cirt if the page was recreated, so I notified him as courtesy, and you per that. --Lexein (talk) 15:04, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Yea I read it wrong. It is a new article that's substantially different from the one deleted at AFD so at first glance, G4 doesn't apply. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:53, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

re Antisexualism

There was an AfD on this article (at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antisexualism) which you closed as Keep. Your rationale was "No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator" so I suppose it was based on headcount. Very well, that's your prerogative, Here's the problem (which I expected, based on my experience with unsourced-POV-essay type articles in general, which is why I thought (and think) that just deleting the article was the best thing.)

It's a long article with, essentially, zero references. It's a person's essay. OK, very well. We'll fix it up!

But I couldn't find any good refs (I don't consider blogs and forum posts and so forth be to be good refs) so -- after tagging the article for lack of refs and engaging on the talk page, and waiting a while for response (there was none) -- I removed the unreferenced material, in a series of steps, with detailed explanation at the talk page and a wait period between steps. When this was done, there was zero material in the article so I recast it as redirect.

User:3v3nth0r120n (2 Wikipedia edits to date) restored all the material, without engaging on the talk page or offering a cogent reason in the edit summary. I reverted this, and then User:189.70.228.141 (2 Wikipedia edits to date) again restored all the material, without engaging on the talk page, but offering an edit summary pointing to the AfD.

I didn't revert this and this is where the article stands, at the moment, as an unsourced (and probably highly inaccurate) POV essay. (A few small edits were since made by User:189.70.241.200 (3 Wikipedia edits to date)) and [User:[189.70.255.58]])

Now User:AnonMoos has jumped in with a message to keep my hands off the article. (Not sure why, since I haven't reverted the last revert, but he may feel (accurately) that I'm liable to do that, or at any rate continue to work on the article.)

Well, Hmmm. If User:AnonMoos thinks that he can prevent me from removing unsourced material in this manner, he's entirely correct. I've been burned by these sort of tactics before and am not eager for another round. So my options are:

  • If I just revert again, I'll be liable to charges of edit warring, and will likely be blocked.
  • If I revert again but continue to try to engage on the talk page, I'll still be liable to charges of edit warring, and will likely be blocked.
  • If I just engage on the talk page, I'll probably continue to get no response, and the article will remain as an unsourced (and probably highly inaccurate) POV essay.
  • If I get lucky and do engage on the talk page and get an actual response, and get a discussion going, this will likely devolve to a couple-few people saying "unsourced material needs to go" and a couple-few people saying "the material does not need to be sourced, it's just obviously true" (this is based on my experience with articles of this type), result being no consensus and the article remains as an unsourced (and probably highly inaccurate) POV essay.

Since it was your call that the article should exist, and since User:189.70.228.141 pointed to your close as rationale for retaining the article in its current state, you sort of own this problem, I guess, so maybe you'll be willing to work with me sorting this all out. What's your advice? Herostratus (talk) 03:22, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

It was not really "my call". If the AFD in question was closed any other way then "keep", I would have been defending my "supervote" at DRV. However, using the close to defend the current state of the article was inappropriate. That being said, this is essentially a content dispute and needs to be settled through the normal dispute resolution processes but I did notice that 2 of the IP addresses involved in this edit war geolocate the the same city so you could file an
spi. --Ron Ritzman (talk
) 12:25, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Well, fair enough, you're right about that -- I looked over the AfD again, and I'll grant that you had to close it as Keep, otherwise you would have your head handed to you and it would have gone to DRv and been overturned. So I don't think it was a bad close. Don't know about SPI, one of the users has a name and I think that means Checkuser comes into play and I think Checkuser would be denied (not sure how things go over there). Tell you what. If you'd watchlist the article for a bit and sort of keep an eye on things in a loose sort of way (not asking you to participate), that'd make me feel better, if you don't mind doing that, as I think it's liable to get contentious. Herostratus (talk) 16:21, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Brett Tabke

Hi Ron. Would you consider relisting Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brett Tabke for further discussion? There are only three views, and looking at the Google Book and Google Scholar search results, I think the discussion may have reached the wrong conclusion. When there are hits coming back in German, Chinese because the guy is being cited all around the world in reliable published works, that is an indication he may be notable. Thank you. Jehochman Talk 15:58, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

  •  Done I was reluctant at first because in the past I have declined such requests with less participation in the AFDs in question. I don't want to make it look like I'm giving "special treatment" to admins/experienced editors. I hope this doesn't open up the floodgates and I get a rash of requests from 20 edit article creators who want blog sources considered. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:45, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Thank you, Ron. We are having a few parallel discussions about the notability of webmasters and web personalities. Whatever the result may be in each specific case, I think it is very helpful to examine them all at once and come up with a consistent guideline for who is notable and who isn't. See also Jill Whalen, Barry Schwartz (technologist), Matt Cutts, Danny Sullivan (technologist), Jessie Stricchiola and Vanessa Fox. It would be useful to summarize the results of the AfDs current and past from these articles to create a guideline.
If anybody suggests I received special treatment, and I hope I didn't, it may help to explain that it is reasonable to reopen an AfD when any editor, no matter how experienced or inexperienced, puts forward a plausible argument for notability that wasn't discussed yet. Best regards, Jehochman Talk 19:44, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Alex Galchenyuk

On December 31, 2010, you deleted

WP:GNG at this time, which trumps any other policy. The obvious question is how - TSN is how. TSN's Bob McKenzie has ranked Galchenyuk #5 in the pre-season draft rankings, and both he and Yakupov (ranked #1 of course) are discussed in articles - Yakupov usually more heavily, granted the #1 spot - but both get face time. There is a video from the broadcast last Thursday in the video player that also tells their story of living together. Even if Galchenyuk now has a major turnaround and misses the draft completely, he will still be notable for that. Notability at this point is assured. Here is another TSN link
, this time directly to the actual Thursday broadcast video now on the TSN site clearly showing Galchenyuk discussed at #5.

Now, there is a complication with the restoration of the page. The original location of the page has since become home to a redirect that was placed for Alexander Galchenyuk, both pages created in May 2011. So the redirect has to be disposed of before the page can be restored. Coincidentally, the latter subject is his father and they are both now with the Sting. CycloneGU (talk) 14:32, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I think it might be a good idea for you to make your case at
deletion review. In the meantime I have restored the old article's history but left the redirect intact. --Ron Ritzman (talk
) 02:17, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
I beg to differ. People have said they don't contest the article being restored if notability is established. I believe notability is established and have stated why, so I have enough reason to recreate the article myself. If someone wishes to contest my assertions of notability, then the article would undergo another AfD. When
WP:GNG was proven during the process and the article remained. Anyone can still follow this process for a revamped article; I didn't want to start completely from scratch, but first to get some information from the previous version of the article. The history merge did that, so thanks for that; I'll base a new version of the article off of that in the coming days as I have time to work on it. =) CycloneGU (talk
) 00:22, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Article recreation

Hi. I recreated Peter MacDonald (computer programmer), an article you deleted (from a PROD, so it's allowed - there's more on the article talk page about that), hopefully with better sources. Could you restore the article editing history? Thanks. I don't know if the talk page had anything interesting on it that needed restoring, but if it did, could you also restore that (keeping my addition)? Thanks twice! --GRuban (talk) 20:01, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

  •  Done. But since this was a complex action (delete current article, undelete deleted incubated article, move incubated article to article space, restore current history) I saw no point in restoring the old talk page as there was nothing significant there. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:00, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! --GRuban (talk) 16:42, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Heh!

Very good! LOL (

BWilkins ←track
) 12:27, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Thought it would be a nice addition. BTW, in the US, most chipsfries do not go "crunch". --Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:40, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Should it be "munch munch"? I wanted something that went well with the "whack" of a trout ... and can ya believe that someone actually nom'd the related template {{
BWilkins ←track
) 12:42, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
If the Featured redirects project ever starts back up, this should be featured. =) CycloneGU (talk) 23:19, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Where is 'Mahan Mitra's page ? Why did you delete it ? He got Shanti Swarup Bhatnagar Award !!!!!

A few months ago I have seen the wiki page of Mahan Mj ('Mahan Mitra'). But now its not here! What is the cause for deleting the page? He has got the most prestigious national award this year (SSB Award). Please restore the page. 59.93.247.38 (talk) 20:59, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Deletion review for
Mahan Mitra

An editor has asked for a

Mahan Mitra. 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. 59.93.247.38 (talk
) 23:10, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I humbly request that,

you close the discussion that I made that you reopened. You mentioned that a second concept should exist to distinguish, and I personally agree with you on it. Somebody should get onto that.

!xmcuvg2MH
 00:17, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Note

Just in case you were unaware... in referencing the close of an earlier AFD for Travis Gordon, and without mentioning you by name, it was stated "the person who closed it as keep did so not following common rules for such things by accepting votes from clear sockpuppet/single purpose accounts." Looking at earlier AFDs, I see you were a closer. Not exactly a nice accusation. Just wanted to let you know. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 09:10, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

With your 6+ years of experience and sixtyfivethousand+ edits, you well know how to recognize a sockpuppet or SPA... and outright rudeness. The accusation was not a nice thing to read. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:47, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Penrhyn International

Hi Ron, I noticed that you recently deleted my entry: Penrhyn International. I'm convinced it is a completely neutral piece of information with more than 10 external references of a prestigious organization with more than 30 years of existence. Some four of their members have been awarded with prizes for contribution to the profession by the trade Association AESC.

I would appreciate if you reconsider your decision. And I promise to improve my rookie editing. :-)

Regards, Luis — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luistru (talk • contribs) 14:10, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I've reopened the AFD so you can make your case. You need to make your argument here. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:37, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Requesting speedy close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Khosrow Motazed Amoli

See this teh EPIC FIAL on my part.--Shirt58 (talk) 12:18, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Restoration of
Horror Island (film)

Hello Ron. I saw that you had restored this article per the request of the editor who created it (who had also requested it be deleted just a couple days ago.) I would ask that you please restore the talk page for that article as well. I made a fairly lengthy post expressing my concerns over some info that

WP:OWNERSHIP problems with articles that they have edited as can be seen by their deletion/undeletion requests, by their labeling as vandals any editors who work on said articles and by the messages they have left here User talk:Pinkadelica. Thus, I would like my questions put back on the record for that page. I don't know if any of the other articles that Abbythecat asked to be restored had talk page material so if you would also please check those and restore the ones that did it would be much appreciated. Thanks for you time and cheers. MarnetteD | Talk
14:55, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for following through on this. Again your efforts are much appreciated. MarnetteD | Talk 23:57, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Galen Pehrson artist page deletion

RE: Galen Pehrson artist page deletion (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Galen_Pehrson&action=edit&redlink=1) You cited inadequate information and third party references, Google search shows a website www.GalenPehrson.com, Third Party posting and reference, image search abundant as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dgroupa (talk • contribs) 02:06, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I closed it as "delete without prejudice" which means that any logged in editor is free to write a new article. However, I will not undelete the article because it was an unsourced
biography of a living person. Also, the website you mentioned is not an independent reliable source as it's likely either be a fansite or run by the subject himself. --Ron Ritzman (talk
) 02:18, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I am sure someone will rebuild it. However what you referenced is grounds for article clean up not deletion. To state that you could only find an NPR photo credit is simply not true, and there is many third party articles in the search: http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=Galen+Pehrson&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

I needed to link to this page and its gone, it also left dead links from many other wiki pages, in my opinion the deletion seems brash, i would reconsider restoring the article and marking it as needing clean up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dgroupa (talk • contribs) 03:27, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


Great wall of text

Extended content

"Anyone who does not float in this inundation is most condemned. Such a person cannot be delivered for millions of kalpas. The kalpa is explained in the Bhagavad-gītā (8.17): sahasra-yuga-paryantam ahar yad brahmaṇo viduḥ. One day of Brahmā is called a kalpa. A yuga, or mahā-yuga, consists of 4,320,000 years, and one thousand such mahā-yugas constitute one kalpa. The author of Śrī Caitanya-caritāmṛta says that if one does not take advantage of the Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement of Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu, he cannot be delivered for millions of such kalpas.

To hell with trying to secure a comfortable situation within this temporary world of shadowy afflictions To hell with heavenly delights on earth, elevation to Svargaloka or residence on any of the highest planets in this cosmos To hell with the achievement of mystic perfections To hell with all our exuberant eating, sleeping, mating and defending on the plea of keeping body and soul together for the performance of sacrifice To hell with the attempt to curtail our generally excessive eating, sleeping, mating and defending with the aim of practicing the principles of practical renunciation To hell with undergoing severe penances and austerities for the sake of self-realization and God Consciousness To hell with The achievement of five kinds of liberation To hell with the attainment of Vaikuntha-loka in the eternal kingdom of God To hell with having been born on earth as some kind of dull headed humanoid in this most glorious age of Kali in which Lord Caitanya has appeared to make self-realization easy by inaugurating the Sankirtan movement of the Holy Name To hell with Conceitedly boasting of our descent from a most venerable disciplic succession of eternally perfect Gaudiya Vaisnava Acaryas To hell with exploiting the prestige of sitting at the feet of such a topmost Rasik Vaisnava as His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada or any other for that matter To hell with strictly following the principles of Varnashram-dharma, that is for the kanishta-adhikaris having meagre pure devotional shraddha To hell with playing mommy and daddy in the material world To hell with our having opened hundreds of temples, restaurants and farm communities with the aim of delivering all the fallen conditioned souls in the universe from the cycle of repeated birth and death To hell with animal husbandry To hell with following from A to Z all the damn rules and regulations of the International Society for rules and regulations To hell with trying to become a Hare Krishna clone To hell with our having ‘advanced’ through the fires of years upon years of ordeal in almost intolerable association of blundering neophytes To hell with attempting to express our love for guru and Krishna in terms of endlessly bearing the brunt of relentless institutional strife To hell with toeing the party line To hell with the institutionalism of the institutionalists To hell with religio-institutional corporateaucracy To hell with trying to reconcile ourselves to neoteric drift of a movement’s henpecked leadership To hell with being a Hare Krishna ‘yes man’ To hell with all the superficial role modelling To hell with our profiling as advanced devotees when we know damn well we’re not To hell with palming off self-effected spiritually gutless macho Kali-yuga so-called heroism as inspirational devotional dignity. Real heroism aims exclusively to conquer the heart of Krsna To hell with grappling for socio-religious eminence To hell with institutional rubber-stamping of sampradaya supra-men To hell with the necessary evil of ‘poorly’ organized religion To hell with all the meetings, resolutions, revolutions, dissolutions and no solutions ad infinitum To hell with ever abounding, all entangling crisis mismanagement syndrome. What could be expected of an institution that currently runs rather like a decapitated donkey? To hell with our having supposedly heard and regurgitated hundreds and thousands of bhagavatam classes, dutifully attended thousands and millions of mangal-arati and guru-puja kirtans and perfunctorily chanted millions and billions of rounds of maha-mantra japa – “shnik shnik ram ram” To hell with all our vehemently preaching about preaching about how we’re supposed to preach about preaching about how we’re supposed to preach about how we’re supposed to preach. What are we preachers supposed to be preach-preachity-preaching about? To what extent have we actually understood? To hell with the profiteering of the cash covetous business brain mongers of transcendental knowledge To hell with the hindu bindu society for currency… oops I mean Krsna Consciousness I say to hell with milking the hindu cash cow To hell with the cost effective bhog-wise Hare Krishna phobia To hell with the painfully put on Sankirtan smile To hell with it, like infatuated children avidly engrossed in the perpetual pastime of competitively collecting rare and unusual coinage, we accumulate the hundreds and thousands of unqualified, neophyte disciples under the pretext of perpetuating the sampradaya. I say to Hell with it. To hell with, on the plea of concern for others, becoming so blunderingly bogged down with all the petty little problems that we don’t find time and space required to complete even the minimum nam bhajan expected of a new Bhakta then what of achieving the advanced internal devotional realizations needed to become for the benefit of ones disciples anything better than a half-baked cookie To hell with the undignified, artfully employed, hardnosed, cunningly politic, cold-shouldering, dog-eat-dog, bureaucratic, ecclesiastical, oligarchic spin control. Has anyone ever achieved Prema by this approach? To hell with religio-institutional mass consensual trance To hell with being a pawn on the religio-managerialist chess board of any stool passing mortal To hell with coyly compromising the truth to curtail to the cacophonous misconclusions of dullheaded underenlightened ecclesiastics of religio-executive clout. To hell with all the rubbish, time wasting power politicking religio-institutional, inter-institutional hostilities. Are there not yet innumerable grumblers intent on being inexorably encumbered by such endless trivial affairs To hell with in-house, party spirited pseudo disciplic partiality To hell with the materially concocted nation of having so-called friends and enemies among the vaisnavas To hell with the perfidiously inflicted, heartless top heavy, centralised manipulation of man power and money on the threadbare plea of spreading Love of Godhead to the extent that such scheming preoccupations now indispensably supersede our life’s mission of becoming mad after Krsna To hell with scrambling to savour varieties of mundane rasa on the pretext of fostering socially feasible spiritual enrichment To hell with the fools who conscientiously avoid hearing chanting and remembering the Lord’s Rasa-lila and other madhurya pastimes with the gopis. They will never attain perfection. If by chance I encounter the likes of such imposter vaisnavas I will close my ears to their philosophical absurdities, refuse to see their faces and scorn the dismal air about their corpse-like material bodies To hell with fashionably passing off sub-religious, quasi-Krsna Conscious eclecticism as harmonious devotional practice To hell with being anyone’s giggling guru To hell with being anyone’s giggling disciple To hell with the deliberate dumbing down of the Krsna Consciousness movement To hell with pandering to the psycho-physical indulgences of the movement’s lowest common denominator To hell with the deaf ears of the conceited, self-complacent, ivory towered religio-administrative elitists. To hell with spineless, self-serving, ecclesiastical political correctitude To hell with our having distributed billions and trillions of transcendental literatures all over the world in scores of languages to give everyone ELSE a chance to become fully Krsna Conscious I say to hell with it all

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.132.68.8 (talk) 13:43, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments, have a nice day. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:38, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Jeremyawesome

Looking for some traction here. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 19:42, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Possible?

I note that Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion does not include even a hint that, even if not suitable for undeletion, an editor might request userfication of a deleted article so that they may improve it if able outside of article space. Perhaps the page could include or offer a simple link to Wikipedia:Userfication as a possibility? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 02:39, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Preservation and vandalism

In response to

talk
) 02:39, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Overdue for a close

I came across Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roy Eriksen which seemed to have fallen off the lists. AFD was opened on August 28, and even without a re-listing, the last comment was made October 17. I think seven weeks is probably long enough to run an AFD. How about you? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 05:36, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Galveston Pirate SC

Hi Ron. Would you tag Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Galveston Pirate SC, which is fully protected, with <noinclude>{{Delrevafd|date=2011 October 14}}</noinclude>? Thank you, Cunard (talk) 08:03, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

  •  Done and unprotected. I should have removed the protection when I closed the DRV early. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 11:50, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

The Page entitled Rich Christiansen

Hi, I have recently noticed that you have deleted the page I made entitled Rich Christiansen (businessperson) The reason below was that he was a non-notable person. Could you please explain to me the reason. I added several credible sources. If you could undelete the page and explain to me what I need to fix that would be wonderful. Thank you for your time. Hansvonsmythe (talk) 17:15, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

About Kunjaliyan

Hi Ron! I marked this new article as patrolled, then was about to start

WP:HAMMER to me. Do you think further action (ie: have I stuffed up again?) is required here, apart from the usual article maintenance? --Shirt58 (talk
) 09:32, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I've merged the histories of both versions but left most recent creation intact. If it goes up for deletion again I'll be glad to userfy it for you. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:17, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

My comment at ANI

Hey Ron, I hope it doesn't come across as a big deal, I'm fairly certain I know the point you were trying to make and I'm pretty much on the same page, but I have a strong reaction to the use of quotes, and I felt obligated to point it out (referring to my edit at ANI, if it isn't clear.)--SPhilbrickT 15:59, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

This Romantic Tragedy

Can you restore the article This Romantic Tragedy? The debut album "Reborn" was ranked on place 26th at Billboards Heatseekers Charts. See here. --91.22.4.203 (talk) 15:41, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I've undeleted the article and have reopened the original AFD. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:33, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Is that standard procedure?!
CTJF83
 02:29, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

John Hutchison deleted page.

I can clean it up if you put it back. I have worked with John for years, I know a lot about him and his scientific discoveries.

Adrien [email protected] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.119.234.1 (talk) 22:14, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

  •  Not done There was a clear consensus to delete this article, the subject requested deletion, and per your admission of having worked with the subject you have a clear
    conflict of interest. If we are to have an article on John then it will need to be written by somebody with no connection to the subject. --Ron Ritzman (talk
    ) 01:25, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Good Humor
This was such a side spillet that it nearly killed me. I will soon have so sue you in a court of law in Trenton, New Jersey for damages :) Buggie111 (talk) 14:03, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Talkback Message

Hi Ron, you left a talkback message on my talk page, but I'm not sure why... was it intended for someone else or am I being stupid? Cheers,

Jim
and the soapdish 20:09, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

You !voted in the AFD that I reopened. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 20:12, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Doh! I'll look at it again.
Jim
and the soapdish 21:11, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Alchemy App

I'm creating Alchemy App again. Every time you delete it (or someone else) I will make another article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.41.127.1 (talk) 00:32, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

That would be completely pointless. Your recreations would be speedy deletable under
deletion review. --Ron Ritzman (talk
) 02:25, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Leslie Kulesh

Hi, and first of all thank you for undeleting my page Leslie Kulesh... I'm sorry to say it has been deleted again! I really can't see what is wrong with it. This non-notable thing seems so vague. There are strange biases toward certain types of notability... One would assume that internet based sources of notability would be privileged, but in fact it is quite opposite. A sort of snobbery toward other internet sources is prevalent, meaning that notability of an artist is based on accumulation of capital, cultural or financial. An artist's fame is hard to measure, but an artist like Leslie Kulesh who has both a large internet and real world presence should be considered notable! Ugh! I wanted this to be one of many articles about young contemporary artists but I spend so much time defending the few I have made I'm not sure I could keep up with many more... Anyway, sorry for the rant... Wikipedia can be a lonely place, and protestations can fall on deaf ears sometimes... I would love to know whether or not you think the article should stay deleted or not, and if you had any constructive criticisms... I would like to rebuild the page in a way that it fits the general standards. Thanks!

Best

Chaosandvoid (talk) 18:13, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

BWilkins ←track
) 18:26, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
I have to agree, I undeleted the article the first time because contested PRODs are automatically restored. (or at least they're suppose to be) Also, the original PRODer didn't use an edit summary or inform Chaosandvoid of the PROD. However, in the case of the AFD, Chaosandvoid was clearly informed of the discussion, had his chance to argue his case and didn't do so. The discussion was open for 2 weeks with every !voter saying "delete". Chaosandvoid, you are just going to have to accept that Leslie Kulesh is not going to get an article at this time. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 18:57, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

DeusM AfD

Hi Ron. i understand that DeusM was fast-tracked to AfD as a result of the speedy delete discussion, and I appreciate your neutrality. I wonder who I should ask - if not you - for the reason it's being proposed for deletion. I have tried to answer concerns about notability. One editor seems to think it's "spam without relevant content." Can you clarify the reason for deletion? Failed speedy deletion is surely not enough. Thanks.WebHorizon (talk) 19:44, 2 November 2011 (UTC)WebHorizon

I only sent it to AFD because there was a consensus to do so at the deletion review ie every !voter said "restore and list at AFD". Therefore, that's where you need to make your case. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:47, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
I understand why, Ron, but there's no reason for deletion given. I'll point this out at the discussion.WebHorizon (talk) 14:47, 3 November 2011 (UTC)WebHorizon

Star Parker

Hi Ron. Noticed the deletion of Star Parker, which IMO was a good delete. However that stub had 2 independent secondary sources. The draft in the incubator has 1 independent secondary source. If the deleted copy and the draft are merged Parker would just pass WP:BASIC. (The sources are about her activism, not the campaign--so WP:POLITICIAN doesn't apply.) – Lionel (talk) 02:31, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

You can still use the sources in the incubated article. I've pasted all sources used in the stub to the article's talk page. The stub I deleted didn't have any information not already in the incubated draft aside from the unsourced name of her husband. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:28, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

why did you delete Star Parkers information

Why did you delete Star Parkers information. I was looking her up and you removed it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.49.230.173 (talk) 02:50, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Star Parker

She is a most interesting woman. Why remove her? Kathryn Stolz — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.49.230.173 (talk) 02:54, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

You can read the reason why by clicking "afd" above. However, you are welcome to work on a draft that may later be moved to article space. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:31, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Wow! I can't believe you removed Star Parker. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.194.12.64 (talk) 04:46, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I strenuously object to this deletion, which was clearly instituted for political reasons by someone with an anti-conservative bias. Star Parker is eminently notable for her political activism, published writings, conspicuous public profile, countless appearances in national media, congressional campaign, and work on behalf of conservative social issues. She's been a well-known public figure for decades. Here's a Google search of her notability. --Trackerseal (talk) 14:58, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for graduating Star from the incubator. – Lionel (talk) 01:01, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

You deleted Eric Chamberlain

Why did you delete the Eric Chamberlain article about the music producer? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.4.35.163 (talk) 21:57, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Regarding Eric Chamberlain deletion

Greetings. I just found out why the page was deleted. I would like this reversed. The reason for deletion is that Eric Chamberlain is insignificant. Well, his music is known on every continent excluding Antarctica.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&gbv=2&biw=1920&bih=912&q=Eric+Chamberlain+INdex&oq=Eric+Chamberlain+INdex&aq=f&aqi=g-v1&aql=1&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=93169l96135l0l96244l22l18l0l3l3l1l255l2657l0.9.6l15l0

This is just for one project, and a newer one at that. This is just for a single record out of more than ten:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&gbv=2&biw=1920&bih=912&q=Eric+Chamberlain+INdex+Black+Light+Twilight&oq=Eric+Chamberlain+INdex+Black+Light+Twilight&aq=f&aqi=&aql=1&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=449835l454269l0l454427l21l21l0l20l0l0l276l276l2-1l1l0

Not to mention he produces music for TV and animation.

Hopefully this will help clear up any confusions or misunderstandings. Thank you for your time and consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.4.35.163 (talk) 22:12, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

None of what you provided was presented or evaluated in the
deletion review. --Ron Ritzman (talk
) 01:55, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Collaborative Intelligence

Hi Ron, I appreciate your huge contribution to Wikipedia (I'm new). I'm writing you to place a small topic in the context of the larger topic, which is the reason I joined Wikipedia (in September)

Small Topic –– your deletion of Microbes-Mind Forum & Zann Gill – both stub articles in the Collaborative Intelligence knowledge cluster. I had added references to the Microbes Mind Forum article yesterday, only minutes before you deleted that article. Did you see them? If that merits deciding to leave either, or both, articles with stub tags to grow gradually (my preference), I'd appreciate it, since I joined Wikipedia specifically to grow the knowledge web around Collaborative Intelligence (main article) and related articles (e.g. these two).

Background I was motivated to join Wikipedia because as an older student, completing a PhD on Collaborative Intelligence, I saw that the article was poor (dealt with the business aspects only). I wanted to put in place a framework so others could contribute. Since joining in September, my main contributions are new Wiki bio pages on J Scott Turner and on Israeli physicist Eshel Ben-Jacob. The latter page is now a Wiki Israel project. Both are doing work relevant for Collaborative Intelligence and both advisers to the Microbes Mind Forum, the more recent article that you deleted. My objective was to continue to add short articles relevant to Collaborative Intelligence, some of which might be stubs for awhile. Do the refs I added yesterday just before you deleted that article merit restoring it? Ark2 (talk) 19:18, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

The AFD could have used more participation but since you yourself tried to get the article deleted by blanking it, I decided to close it. If you wish to make an argument for keeping these articles I'll be glad unclose and relist the AFD. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:31, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Since I'm a novice, I'm not sure what that means. What I'd propose: If you can restore the Microbes Mind Forum article as a stub with a stub tag, since it now has more references as requested, it can evolve over time. If you don't think it's satisfactory (i.e. if you'd require another extended deletion discussion now, then leave it deleted). Ditto for Zann Gill. Or just restore Microbes Mind Forum and leave Zann Gill deleted if you prefer. I think extended deletion discussions now on these would waste everyone's time, so either w/ a single simple stubs tag or deleted is best. Thanks for all you're doing to make Wikipedia great. Ark2 (talk) 02:33, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

It would mean that I undelete both articles and re-open the AFD which already had 2 delete !votes. You would then need to make an argument as to why the articles should be kept. You didn't do that the first time.--Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:52, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

The Grinning Man

Given the amount of updates on

my reply to you.

For future reference, how do I dig that kind of information up? Do I have to sort through endless pages of AfD articles, or can I search for it to make the process quicker?

I’d like to know how to do this on my own so something like this doesn’t happen again. Thank you. Geeky Randy (talk

) 19:05, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

replied here. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:00, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Gurjar clans

Hi! I have a question about the AfD linked above, which you recently closed. Two of the three keep votes argued that the list should be kept because it is a valid

WP:SETINDEX article. Looking at it, however, this does not seem to actually be the case here; it's not a set index at all as far as I can tell. I know that the user who made the argument has a history of calling a non set index a set index in AfDs in order to keep them (here and here are the two cases where this occurred, although they were called out on it and the article was deleted), but I was curious if I was missing something here and maybe I was just confused about what a set index is. Thanks for your time.--Yaksar (let's chat)
22:47, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Mainly I closed it the way I did for 2 reasons. 1.
WP:JNN delete !votes in a lot of AFDs and I give his !votes very little weight. In this case I would wait a month and nominate it again if the article hasn't been improved. --Ron Ritzman (talk
) 03:12, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://www.fightmag.net/?p=12807
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ron_Ritzman/Archive_11&oldid=1190272472"