User talk:GRBerry/Archive 4

• Archive 1: April 20 to June 26, 2006
• Archive 2: June 27 to September 10, 2006
• Archive 3: September 11 to December 30, 2006

At this point I became an admin. Subsequent archives are by bots, so in the order conversations became stale rather than the order they were created.

• Archive 4: December 31, 2006 to January 27, 2007
• Archive 5: January 31, 2007 to May 31, 2007
• Archive 6: June 1, 2007 to September 1, 2007
• Archive 7: September 2, 2007 to October 29, 2007
• Archive 8: October 30, 2007 to December 31, 2007
• Archive 9: January 1, 2008 to March 31, 2008
• Archive 10: April 1, 2008 to August 31, 2008
• Archive 11: September 1, 2008 to ongoing

This 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.

Six Laws of Adam

First of all Mazel Tov on the mop n bucket!!! Hope you become an asset to WP. About getting the above article undeleted, must I now find the exact daf in the Talmud and section name in Rambam? frummer 03:29, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Westinghosue reversion?

I don't understand why you reverted, without explanation of any kind, the speedy-delete tag I had added to Westinghosue Electric Corporation. It's a peculiar and unlikely typo, one of the criteria for speedy deletion. Jkatzen 07:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimately, because I didn't even see the typo while I was processing the CSD category. Additionally, CSD R3, to which you refer, only applies to recently created created redirects. October 2005 is beyond my understanding of recently created, so I'm not going to reverse myself. GRBerry 14:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, you recommend keeping a random typo page? Instead of just undoing the speedy-delete, why don't you do something useful and practical like nominating it however you feel a page of that nature should be? I don't understand why you're taking such a patronizing tone -- I was just trying to help. "So I'm not going to reverse myself." Sheesh. Jkatzen 02:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies that you saw a patronizing tone in my response; I did not intend one. I don't think it is worth getting rid of the typo, so I'm not going to spend the time no nominate it on WP:RfD. GRBerry 03:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever (you're doing it again) . . . I don't understand why people on here can't be appreciative of others trying to help. Some of you frequent editors get these egos about yourselves with some sort of sense of entitlement. Telling me that you are granting "apologies" because I saw a patronizing tone is just repeating the slight. I thought, as an administrator, you were supposed help other editors out. If you see something that's been mistakenly misnominated, instead of invoking a flippant veto (as if you're some sort of terminal voice), it would be far more helpful if you would use your experience and expertise to a.) not make others feel foolish or ignorant, and b.) aid others through the bureaucracy. I'm not asking for you to even defend yourself here -- I'm just looking for you to be helpful. Jkatzen 03:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fresh frozen seafood

This person deleted my new page 'fresh frozen seafood for' copyright violations, he said

well PAL. i made the web page the info came from as an Evangelical you claim to be, I have doubts about ANY information you expouse with the experience IO have had with 'these types' in Latin America your rhetoric falls short, and the ceiling of your educational abailities is always in doubt, especially your openness to other's creed and beliefs

I am Buddhist I assume you may have seen this on my pages and deleted because of this leave my mess alone PAL you know more about seafood than us? I seriously doubt it I will repost, and leave it alone, then you will not have a problemo, delete it again, expect a visit, this is a promise, not a threat and there are other religions on this planet other than you evangelicals go edit something else, —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.153.180.21 (talk)

An obvious G11 as advertising, never mind that the article may have been also a copyright violation. GRBerry 16:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help on Red Paint People

I was going through my contribute list, and noticed your generous additions: it took a over a year for anyone to give it a good makeover. Cwolfsheep 01:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Deletion Review for Khalil Kalfat

The problem is that I am busy right now in real life. I am currently maintaining 48 articles (the articles I have created). I don't have time to look after another article. Most of my contributions are related to WikiProject Egypt which is just starting. Also, I don't know much about him. The information provided in the four links are enough to create a Start-Class article or at least Stub-Class but we will have to carefully write the article so that it is not a copyright violation. How about placing him in Category:Needed-Class Egypt articles?

--Meno25 04:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing, since you are an administrator, I have tagged about 20 articles for speedy deletion. Could you please delete them? They are the most recent articles in my contributions. Their edit summary is: Adding speedy template. Thank you.

--Meno25 04:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your consideration

Thank you for the consideration you gave to my RfA. 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. Yours was one of the neutral votes, and raised concerns. I am more than willing to discuss those concerns with you if you are interested. Please let me know. Sincerely, --BostonMA ^talk 13:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]

re: Don Roberts

Thanks for the notice. Rossami (talk) 03:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Re: Saint Mary's DRV

First, as I also posted on the DRV, you made the point that someone could still merge/redirect the article after the AfD was closed as a keep. In fact, this was attempted, but reverted soon after as failure to adhere to the closure. Second, you admit that the only point made by keep !voters was passage of WP:SCHOOL, which the article does not, so how can you urge to endorse the closure or endorse a no consensus when 1) there's a clear consensus, and 2) those going against the consensus do not provide sufficient reasoning for doing so? Cheers. -- Kicking222 17:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, as far as the first point, please note that, in my DRV nomination, I state "overturn and delete or redirect"; thus, I would support redirecting the page if this had been allowed by other users (which, clearly, it is not). -- Kicking222 17:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The delete arguments actually made in the AFD are not really any better, so I don't see the strength of arguments that you, and others, see. A bunch of NN per noms, one to WP:SCHOOLS3 which is also a proposal, and most validly some "no assertion of notability", with which the keep opiners differed. Nobody opining delete actually said "I can't find any sources and here is how I tried", so WP:V was not in play so far as I'm concerned. Had those arguments been made, we'd be evaluating a different discussion. But if all we see are "no it isn't", "yes it is", I can't use strength of arguments to evaluate the close. GRBerry 17:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your point regarding WP:V. Nobody really gave a good argument supporting verification nor supporting the lack thereof; thus, it's really impossible to judge the AfD on the basis of discussion. Of course, I would then argue that the AfD closure should be analyzed based on head count, which, in my opinion, shows a consensus. 72.7% is in a slightly grey area, but I would argue that it's a strong enough consensus to overturn the AfD closure.

I hope that you don't think that I'm attempting to badger you so as to change your !vote in the DRV. You, of course, are welcome to your own opinions, just as I am and everyone else is. I'd like it if you reevaluated your stance, but if you don't, it's all good. I will certainly respect your opinion either way. Have a nice day. -- Kicking222 18:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

vote on deletion

Hi GRBerry. If you have time please revisit John Gorenfeld. More information has been added to establish his notability. Thanks. Steve Dufour 03:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Thank You!

Thank you for helping me get started on wikipedia!

More Freedom License 22:09, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. :( :( :( I'm leaving wikipedia for good, I'm having lots of trouble with other people. Sorry again. Goodbye. I'm the one who you helped by putting all that stuff on my page. Actually maybe I'll run for being an Admin.

More Freedom License 00:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Guantanamo Bay detainees

Thanks for the various heads-ups on the {afd}s on Guantanamo detainees.

I have been thinking, for some time, that List of Guantanamo Bay detainees should be rewritten, or replaced. Those goldarn Guantanamo intelligence analysts did such an abysmal job at managing the list of names of the captives..

Anyhow, would you take a look at the first couple of hundred entries in User:Geo Swan/working/total official names as of May 15?

I am changing this file that I used to help manage my work on the Guantanamo articles. I think the current state of the first couple of hundred entries comes near the merge you thought was a good idea. I finished beginning to flesh out almost all the articles beyond the stubs generated by my python scripts.

Maybe a smarter person could figure out a way to automate changing these all the entries at once. This took a surprisingly long amount of time.

Cheers! -- Geo Swan 07:10, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Responded at User talk:Geo Swan/working/total official names as of May 15

Thanks for your prompt attention. Cheers! -- Geo Swan 19:36, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Catholic-link deletion review

You endorsed the "no consensus" ruling, and I have addressed this at Wikipedia:Deletion review#Template:Catholic-link, where I invite you to take a second look. — coelacan talk — 10:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Title Change

Greetings. The article list of our interest has been moved to a new wikiproject page. The new title is called the >>> List of articles related to scientific skepiticism. If you have any suggestions for improvement just let me know. The movement forward will be focusing, direction, and quality info. Sincerely, --QuackGuru 03:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here,

You might need this: WP:TROUT :) >Radiant< 14:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Rec.sport.pro-wrestling

You went against a clear consensus. I will be filing a deletion review. TruthCrusader 05:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh boy, my first deletion review. Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 January 17#rec.sport.pro-wrestling. GRBerry 20:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Straw poll

Please take a look at WP:MALL to which you have contributed, with respect to proposals to merge it with WP:LOCAL, to continue developing it, or to go ahead and implement it as a guideline. Thanks. Edison 21:03, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

friedman

ok. didnt realize there was a previously a prod —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yeshivish (talk • contribs) 04:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC). [reply]

Newyorkbrad's RfA

Thank you for your support on my RfA, which closed favorably this morning, as well as for your kind comments accompanying your !vote. I appreciate the confidence the community has placed in me and am looking forward to my new responsibilities. Please let me know if ever you have any comments or suggestions, especially as I am learning how to use the tools. Best regards, Newyorkbrad 20:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]

research/support

If you'd like to do a more elaborate sample of deletions, I'd be glad to help--design, collection, or analysis. I find I'm doing so much there that I might as well be systematic. (And I do know the applicable research methods if we really want to do it right, probably by content analysis). I think we see it similarly--I am there because of trying to help combat the injustices, tho I only really have time to work on the injustice to my segment of the world, university and science people. I noticed your user p. disclaimers. I have exactly the opposite religious polarity to yours, and say it on mine but not nearly so well. I see things the same way & think I can constructively edit what I do not like. (I've been trying to rescue the page of a lithuanian fascist just now, from some who would rather call him names instead of presenting his views objectively--which would serve their purposes very well, if they could just understand that.) DGG 04:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Smoothbeats

Thanks. Well. I am not bragging when I say this...really I'm not. :) But of the probably 1,000 deletes I've done, I think I've had 2 or 3 questioned. So this is new to me. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 06:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Newly-Qualified Teacher

Thanks for re-directing this; stupid really - never crossed my mind to do it! Tafkam 22:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: PediaPress

It's OK. I found the old version of it on a mirror site, so there was no need for me to ask for it to be replaced. I was going to rewrite or add to it if I could find sources, but I can't, so I'll just take the link out of Wikipedia instead. Thanks anyway – Qxz 06:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Admin Nomination

So, it seems like a tight knit community. Thanks for the advice. And, can you explain your comment on my nomination? How can someone quote me Wkipedia usage policy on the one hand, than tell me that it is a concesus decision anyway? The two can be at odds at times. Juda S. Engelmayer 21:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Concensus

Thank you for taking the time. I'll do my research and stay on it.Juda S. Engelmayer 22:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copy editing

See my comment on my talk page, & further commentary on the rfa, and a strong support vote. Sorry, maybe village pump would have been better. What do you want me to do now? --Parker007 23:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Newly-Qualified Teacher

Thanks for re-directing this; stupid really - never crossed my mind to do it! Tafkam 22:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: PediaPress

It's OK. I found the old version of it on a mirror site, so there was no need for me to ask for it to be replaced. I was going to rewrite or add to it if I could find sources, but I can't, so I'll just take the link out of Wikipedia instead. Thanks anyway – Qxz 06:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Admin Nomination

So, it seems like a tight knit community. Thanks for the advice. And, can you explain your comment on my nomination? How can someone quote me Wkipedia usage policy on the one hand, than tell me that it is a concesus decision anyway? The two can be at odds at times. Juda S. Engelmayer 21:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Concensus

Thank you for taking the time. I'll do my research and stay on it.Juda S. Engelmayer 22:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copy editing

See my comment on my talk page, & further commentary on the rfa, and a strong support vote. Sorry, maybe village pump would have been better. What do you want me to do now? --Parker007 23:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Youth Friendship Games

This is an older AfD so might have fallen of your radar. Please review Youth Friendship Games, I think the delete tag can come off. Jeepday 06:06, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This 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.