User talk:UsaSatsui/Archive 1

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.

Great Mighty Poo Afd

I've closed the AfD with a "consensus to merge/redirect" decision. If you want to work on that, here's your chance! Joyous! | Talk 16:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I've removed two bits: one was about the Jetsons movie having the release date originally. Movie releases change all the time, it's not that important. The other was about Jenny Lewis currently being a singer: not notable either. Movie articles aren't guides to what the stars are doing now. The regular article for Jenny Lewis is where that belongs, not a movie article. Other than those two, I suppose the rest can stay. Even though trivia sections still shouldn't be so big. Wikipedia isn't a trivia guide, it's an encyclopedia. RobJ1981 18:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I find the best bits of "trivia" in encyclopedias. One man's trivia is another's important fact. In fact, I think part of Wikipedia's charm is that you have room for trivial things. I agree with you on those two pieces of trivia, though. While you're looking, would you check the "Video-game Related Errors" section below it? I know that could use some pruning, but I can't decide exactly where, and it's pretty much a more-specific trivia section.

And I have a suggestion. You should come up with some objective criteria on what is "too much" or "unimportant" trivia. Just arbitrarily deciding isn't fair. If you can do that (or show me where it is, I couldn't find it), I'd be more than happy to help with your project. I do agree there's some articles with bloated trivia sections. --UsaSatsui 21:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Comments on Kitsune Afd

If I deleted any of your comments, it was an accident and I apologize. I have reverted myself. Again, I don't know how I screwed up like that, but I'm sorry. Edward321 00:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

No worries. Mistakes happen. Thanks for clearing it up. :) --UsaSatsui 03:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Get out the vote?

In the U.S less than half of the eligible voters vote. But in Wikipedia deletions are decided and policies are established often by 6 editors out of maybe 20,000. This means that when someone posts on a noticeboard or a project discussion page the simple info "There is a vote for deletion of Idaho Highway 666 at ..." a half dozen editors who like to create road article come trooping over to the deletion debate to say "All roads are notable" and that one gets kept or there is no consensus. It is questionable to do obvious vote solicitation in this way, but it would be a clearer violation to post on the talk pages of known deletionists and ask them to take a look at a particular debate. I keep going back to WP:N which requires that anything meet certain requirements. If something is so notable, where are the books, magazine articles, etc where it is a primary subject? It exists (although I recall one article some joker made up about a fake road going to a fake small town), but if it were notable it would be noted in more than a bid document and a highway map. Nominating obscure county roads, city streets, and short sections of highway does not seem disruptive or pointmaking, any more than voting to delete a random TV mast. Going to the project discussion page and presenting a dissenting voice in the fold of true believers is not a very rewarding exercise, unless one likes getting shouted down. I can understand why people enjoy creating formulaic articles about roads, or TV masts, or ships, or minor nobility of some country, because it is like knitting or doing Sudoku. Just use a template, copy something from a database, and make another stub article. I can't see how it is useful or how it is something that World Book or Britannica would have, even their online nonpaper versions, since no one has much to say about the less notable roads other than "they exist." Inkpaduta 18:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

- As I said, you need to work to change consensus, and the way to do that isn't in AfDs, because people are going to defend their articles there, and it's much harder to get a keep than a delete. Don't get too hung up on your own interpretation of what's notable...Even if you're sure you're 100% right, consensus can strike you down, and there's always ignore all rules. My suggestion remains to try dispute resolution. If you need help with it, I'll do what I can, but don't expect too much support from me (remember, I disagree with you, I'm just more interested in seeing this resolved than being "right"). --UsaSatsui 19:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Dispute resolution, like RFC or arbitration seems more for when people attack each other and get into revert wars and vandalism, and that they refer content questions right back to the discussion page of the article or to AFD. Technically, the closing administrator could see 20 people saying Keep. All X are inherently notable" and one saying Delete. Does not have sources showing notability, and proceed to delete the article. But then the same troop of fans would apparently show up at deletion review and again vote to keep (as often as people say it is not a vote, it sure looks like one).Inkpaduta 19:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Not necessarily. Try the Mediation Cabal. I personally think the whole "It's not a vote" thing started to keep people from stuffing votes from outside the site, but, you know what? Meh. It did used to be called "Votes for Deletion", and let's face it, the format hasn't changed too much. Anyway, you can try to change it, or you can complain about it to me. One way has a chance of doing something. Good luck. --UsaSatsui 20:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Magic Bullet (appliance)

Hello, I noticed that you !voted early in this AfD. I can easily see how you arrived at your decision, base don information present in the debate at the time you !voted. If you are so inclined, would you please take a moment to review any new information that has been left since you last viewed it, and see if there is possibly basis to change your !vote? Thanks, Jerry lavoie 18:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

User:UsaSatsui/Dance Dance Revolution song lists

Userfied for experimentation on merging. GRBerry 21:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Deleted due to lack of merge effort; userspace is not for hosting copies of deleted content. If you actually ever work on this, we can talk again. GRBerry 23:06, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

No issues there. Gave it a shot, but didn't have the time. Plus, some key info was missing that I really needed to make it work. --UsaSatsui 22:20, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Kill All Your Friends

Hi. I've removed the speedy deletion tag you placed on the above article because I can't find the AfD you're referring to. If you can provide a link to the previous deletion discussion then I'll have no problem deleting this repost, but I wanted to make sure before I (or anyone else) went ahead with it. Thanks! Kafziel ^Talk 07:35, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

There you go. I knew it was under a different name. --UsaSatsui 19:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll take care of it. Kafziel ^Talk 19:27, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Jeopardy! in popular culture

...is up for AfD again. Robert K S 01:56, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks...

... regarding the Project Mayhem thing, that is. Here's hoping it sticks! --Jay (Histrion) (talk • contribs) 00:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Shrute Bucks prod

Thanks for letting me know about the AFD. I was aware of the procedure for not replacing prods. As it was an anonymous editor who gave no reason for the deletion of the prod I treated it as vandalism and reverted it. --WebHamster 21:30, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

John McMullen

Hi. Any chance that you could provide a link to the AFD for this article (there is no history, so I assume it was created with a different title). Thanks TigerShark 23:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

No, I really can't...the prod I removed said it was a re-created article. *shrug*. If you can't find it, then I guess it's off to AfD with it. --UsaSatsui 23:45, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- No, wait, the prod wasn't removed (I thought it was for some reason). Leave the prod up. --UsaSatsui 23:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

List of Swedish Swimming Championships champions

...so I sent it over to AfD. Thanks. I wasn't sure what to do with it; I know I don't like it the way it is though. I appreciate your interest in it.--Appraiser 03:21, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Arden Wohl

have listed the original article http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:RbgR8IR7AQQJ:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arden_Wohl+ARDEN+WOHL+WIKIPEDIA&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=ca —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tweety21 (talk • contribs)

Yes, you're allowed to do that - and please do!

Just so that you know, yes, you're allowed to update the per-day transclusions at RfD. In fact, it's best to do it immediately when you start a new daily page, since otherwise your nomination won't show up. There's no bot or "official" updater doing it (though I do it a lot), so it's fine and good to just change it like you did. Thanks for doing it. — Gavia immer (talk) 16:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I was pressing into "Admin-type" territory so deep, I wasn't sure what I was and was not allowed to do anymore. :) --UsaSatsui 16:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Tweety21 and sockpuppets

"If you have proof this guy is socking, and doing so in an abusive manner, then post it here: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets. Otherwise, you can't go putting that sock template on his page. It's just not fair. --UsaSatsui 22:08, 9 September 2007 (UTC)"
"Then prove it here: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets. Until then, you don't have the right to put that template up. I'm not sure you have it anyways."

Wikipedia Administrator and Bureaucrat Secretlondon has added User:Tweety21 to the list of suspected sockpuppets after acquiring evidence from me and other sources. So please be considerate enough to leave the sockpuppet template on Tweety21's (and her sockpuppets') pages until the investigation can be completed properly, and we may find out if it's fair and I "have it anyways". Ward3001 01:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

If there's a case against the user, I have no problem. There was no case against the user at the time I removed the template. --UsaSatsui 02:05, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for being fair —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.205.213.58 (talk) 22:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Um...sure thing. --UsaSatsui 23:54, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

The reason I prodded that userpage

You removed the prod from User:Chelseyscoot because it was blank. I agree that the page was blank--I blanked it. If you check the edit history, there is something hateful on an early version of the page. Since the related editor is not editing, I decided it would be better if the page were simply removed. I think it would have been inappropriate for me to revert the page to its offensive state before placing the prod tag; therefore I would ask that you consider reverting your removal of it, or add a new one. Thank you. MKoltnow 16:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Good point. I really don't disagree with the deletion, I just don't think it's necessary. A violation in the history isn't really a valid delete reason, and the page is already blanked. I also really don't see any reason to take it to MfD. I'll tell you what, though: I'll put the PROD back on, and we'll see what an admin does with it in 5 days. --UsaSatsui 19:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your consideration. Have a good one. MKoltnow 01:30, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

20-20-20-20 Club

~~There's nothing at all to merge, it's all taken from the original 20-20-20 article. If you had read the articles, you would know. I'm putting the prod back up with its original date.~~

If you want to do something with the article, you are going to have to do it right now.

If you want to send it to AfD, feel free, it's a speedy delete candidate in my opinion, there is no such 'club' so its not a proper noun, either. It is plain and simple an article fork with no new content that doesn't exist in the original.

You can't just remove the prod tag to dispute its deletion, you need to give a reason why duplicate content needs its own article, if you want to dispute it. I don't have admin buttons, so it's a bit of an annoyance to have to manually revert and then re-add everything after the original prod template.

I will though, this article is like finding a cigar butt stuck in the OED.

It has no business having ever been created and if it continues to be a nothing new duplicate of an article that by its very nature is never likely to become too large and will never need to have sub-articles broken out from it.

Any person or event that belongs in 20-20-20-20 is already in or would certainly belong in 20-20-20!

Thanks for fixing the article. I'm dubious of any need for the redirect but wikipedia is not paper, etc. Thanks for your contributions, and sorry if I came off as antagonistic, and uncivil. Nice to meet you! User:Pedant 02:22, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

No worries. I don't take anything too personally. Always willing to help. --UsaSatsui 02:27, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Have you even read WP:PROD? Go do that before you try and argue deletion policy with me. In any event, you're beating a dead horse: It's merged back into the original article, the redirect is up, there's no real reason to argue about this anymore.--UsaSatsui 01:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

You mean this:

"Contesting a proposed deletion

If you do not agree that the article should be deleted without discussion you can do the following things:
1. Remove the {{dated prod}} tag from the article, noting this in the edit summary. Editors should explain why they disagree with the proposed deletion.
2. While you're editing the article anyway, please consider improving it, especially to address the concerns given as a reason for deletion.
3. If you feel that the article should be deleted, but not without discussion, you may nominate the article for an Articles for deletion debate."

? Because that's the part I meant. Anyway, I'm not arguing deletion policy, haven't we both written parts of the policy??? Let's just think of ourselves as co-authors, and do whatever we can to make the internet not suck (by writing a good encyclopedia) and not hack on each other. It's a waste of energy. Thanks for all the value you have added to the encyclopedia and it is a pleasure for me to have made your acquaintance. Let me know if you ever need some chore done or some help or advice or vice versa. ... User:Pedant 02:22, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Nope. I meant this:

Contested deletions: If anyone, including the article's creator, removes Template:Prod from an article for any reason, do not put it back, except if the removal was clearly not an objection to deletion (such as blanking the entire article, or removing the tag along with inserting blatant nonsense); however, if the edit is not obviously vandalism, do not restore it, even if the tag was apparently removed in bad faith. If you still believe the article needs to be deleted, list it on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion.

You should leave a reason for removing it, but a lack of one doesn't make the disputed prod any less "official".--UsaSatsui 02:27, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Nope I hadn't read that, it wasn't there the last time I edited that page I guess. I hate instruction creep and overabundance of 'process'. That's one point where our wikipractices differ, I guess, from reading your userboxes. Whatever, we're too much alike to be arguing opposite points. User:Pedant 02:40, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I've never edited the page, but I am a Prod patroller, so I know the guidelines pretty well (that's how I waltzed into the dispute, checking out the "mismatched date tags" using WP:PRODSUM)--UsaSatsui 02:44, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Codenames

The United States Secret Service is often rumored to use code names for U.S. Presidents, First Ladies, and other persons and locations.[1] In point of fact, however, the White House Communications Agency, under the White House Military Office, actually assigns these names.

This juxtaposition is awkward, as if the second sentence is disputing the first (In point of fact, however,), but I don't see any connection. Can you recommend a way to say this that flows better? I would edit it but I have no idea what the original context was, where the 'however/point of fact' part had some meaning.

Thanks. I knew we'd run across each other again soon... looks like we have a lot of interests in common. User:Pedant 02:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

One article at a time, I'm still busy. :). It means codenames are used by the Secret Service (I don't know how "rumored" got in there, it shouldn't be) for Presidents and others. However, the SS doesn't actually assign the codenames, the White House Communications Agency does. Does that help? --UsaSatsui 02:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Yep thanks. I've got it. User:Pedant 02:48, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help on the Crall article

Thanks for your help on the James Crall article. I am going on the information I have about him which is limited. I really appreciated it. Chris 22:47, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I didn't really help per se...I was just passing by. But just so you know, he may not actually be notable. The A7 criteria is for articles that don't assert notability...that's a different thing from actually being notable. --UsaSatsui 23:12, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Request this article to be deleted ; no reason to improve

I requested for Il dolce suono... Ardon gl'incensi... Spargi d'amaro pianto to be deleted but yet, the request was "denied" by your via WP:PROD when someone "undo" the delete tag with remarks below. You must be joking!;

16:26, 18 September 2007 172.164.55.168 (Talk) (2,525 bytes) (deleting prod; not sure what editor means by not supposed to be in aria "content" If he/she means category, simply remove the category, not the article) (undo)

The action to undo was based on the remarks "not sure .....". Besides, where is the author if we really have to listen to 172.164.55.168? To me, when the author has abandoned an article without doing any good justification on why the article should existed in the first place, the article should be deleted especially when it is a redundant refer Il dolce suono. The author of this article, User:David Dawson wrote this on the 5 July 2006: so happen to be his first and last post.

This aria is for Lucia di Lammermoor, if anybody LOVES to keep this, it should be transfered to Lucia di Lammermoor synopsis for act 3. But if nobody wants to do anything about it because the content is confusing without any citation, it is best to be removed. I am currently doing update and cleanup for arias and I find this as "I dont know what to do with it". This is not an aria, not a synopsis.. so, please remove it or justify why it should be kept rather than keeping it just because somebody popped up and say "not sure what editor means by not supposed to be in aria "content" If he/she means category, simply remove the category, not the article".. - Jay 08:03, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Did you read WP:PROD? The {{subst:prod}} tag is for uncontested deletions. If anyone disagrees, for any reason, or removes the prod tag, it's contested. I didn't remove the original prod. I was simply doing cleanup, since a prod shouldn't be re-added once removed. It no longer qualifies. Instead, list it over at WP:AFD and get a community consensus. Then it can be deleted. --UsaSatsui 15:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Undead Parasite: Castlevania Lament of Innocence

Can you list at least one place this has been deleted by AFD? If you can I'd be glad to speedy delete it as recreated. Cheers, Carlossuarez46 03:37, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if it has been deleted by AfD, but I do know it's been speedied at least once by CSD-A1 (by me, it was pretty much the exact same article), and another one was speedied by patent nonsense according to his talk page. Check User:Castlevaniamaster1's deleted contributions to find them. --UsaSatsui 16:22, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

User talk page blanking

Just FYI—blanking your own talk page is allowed (see Wikipedia:User page#Removal of comments.2C warnings). It's a common misconception (one which I, too, held until someone set me straight) that it's not allowed. Blanking your talk page is considered evidence that you've read the contents (warnings or what have you). Cheers! Precious Roy 18:19, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow. Who knew? Does that also apply to block notices? That's the only reason I reverted it. --UsaSatsui 19:51, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I would think so. I mean, even if you remove the notice, you're still blocked. Precious Roy 10:32, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Clarification on CSD:A7

Dear UsaSatsui, I came across your speedy deletion tag on Polaris (role-playing game) and I just wanted to point out to you that {{subst:db-a7}} is specifically for people (individually or grouped) and websites. There is no consensus for speedily deleting other articles types under this criteria. As Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Explanations notes, other articles that fail to assert notability should go through proposed deletion or articles for deletion. Thank you, Moonriddengirl 21:23, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Whoops! Sorry 'bout that. --UsaSatsui 23:27, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Vandal removing PROD

Don't worry about it. I have no problem taking it to WP:AfD, and, who knows? maybe enough material will be found to expand it. :) I've got one or a couple of editors running around attempting to muck up my contributions, evidently related to University of Western Sydney. They claim to be fighting for truth and justice, which is rather amusing in light of their behavior. :) I am sorry they cause extra work for other editors, but it's just one of the challenges of working on Wikipedia. :) --Moonriddengirl 15:46, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not losing any sleep over it...when in doubt, a prod should go to AFD...I'm just kind of irritated at myself because I -noticed- this guy was following you around last night (he re-added that speedy tag referenced above once or twice) and didn't think it was a vandal edit. --UsaSatsui 15:49, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

With regards to that speedy tag, that happens a lot--that's why I developed a template for it. It seems like consensus may eventually swing to incorporating other article types. It does seem a bit peculiar that by current rules, you can speedily-delete an article about somebody's non-notable mother, but you have to PROD the article about his non-notable dog. :) (Unless, that is, you can get it under "silly vandalism") --Moonriddengirl 16:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

The worry may be too many things will be speedied because they're "not notable". There's already a bunch of confusion on what "asserts notability" means. I can't imagine all the speedies that would show up if you extended A7 to everything. It's the "web content" thing that confuses me, it has nothing to do with people, while the other things A7 applies to are people. --UsaSatsui 17:10, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that's an odd one. Maybe it slipped under to cover Myspace pages? ("That article isn't about a person! It's a Myspace profile!") Or maybe it's just hooked onto the corporate notability. Anyway, it's before my day. :) --Moonriddengirl 17:32, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of New Moon MUD

An article that you have been involved in editing, New Moon MUD, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Moon MUD. Thank you. --B. Wolterding 07:44, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Bill O prod

Hi. Thanks for your message. The template works fine without the subst, and had been erroneously removed in the first place, mistaken for vandalism. However, glad to learn something new about redirects needing their own deletion process. I'll check that out. --Dweller 14:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Trust me, the template doesn't work without the subst. Using susbt makes sure the right date and time are tagged on it, so the 5 days are properly measured. And unless it's clear vandalsim (page blanking and the like), consider any prod removal as a contesting. --UsaSatsui 14:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- It was discussed, and clarified as a mistake. --Dweller 14:50, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  - Alright. --UsaSatsui 14:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Harvey_Crichton

HA! - CobaltBlueTony 14:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

...yeah, that's kind of wierd, huh? I thought it may be an undeleted thing, but I couldn't see any sort of evidence for it. --UsaSatsui 14:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

It's an unsourced autobiography; if he's careless enough to copypaste the prod tag right back on it, then by all means let's oblige him. - CobaltBlueTony 14:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted once here. - CobaltBlueTony 14:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, saw that. Funny, if he didn't c/p the prod, I wouldn't have seen it. He created a date mismatch that WP:PRODSUM picked up. --UsaSatsui 15:01, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

PROD

The people removing that PROD are anons and new editors who are not providing any sources to meet the WP:V requirement. There is not a valid dispute over the placement of the template. Everyking 15:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't matter. If you remove the prod, you're disputing it. No reason required. See WP:PROD --UsaSatsui 15:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- I am aware of that, but I feel that something like this--our article is helping this rumor spread around the Internet as an established fact--requires that, in the interest of our core mission to inform and not misinform, we eliminate it as soon as possible. Everyking 15:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  - Then AFD it (which I have), or find a reason to speedily delete it. That's no reason to circumvent a process meant for uncontoversial deletions. Just because you and I think it's a deletion doesn't mean others do, and just because you and I don't know about it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I wouldn't worry, I don't think it will survive AFD anyways. --UsaSatsui 15:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
    - Some random person removing a PROD is not enough (SEE WP:PROD: "If you do not agree that the article should be deleted without discussion you can do the following things: Remove the {{dated prod}} tag from the article, noting this in the edit summary. Editors should explain why they disagree with the proposed deletion.") Rmhermen 16:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
      - Keep reading: "If anyone, including the article's creator, removes Template:Prod from an article for any reason, do not put it back, except if the removal was clearly not an objection to deletion (such as blanking the entire article, or removing the tag along with inserting blatant nonsense); however, if the edit is not obviously vandalism, do not restore it, even if the tag was apparently removed in bad faith." --UsaSatsui 16:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
In reply to this post. Removal of a PROD notice without making the requested improvements implies that those interested in article are less likely to work towards the article complying with WP:A. Since the article is less likely to comply with WP:A, that makes it more likely that this article will be deleted at Articles for deletion. Why do you think that removal of a PROD notice without making the requested improvements will have no negative affect at AfD? Also, since my name does not appear in the PROD, how does the PROD posting implies that Jreferee's judgment is spot-on perfect? In view of the language that removal may' make it more likely, how do you concluded that such language implies that when Jreferee decide an article should be deleted, it will be? -- Jreferee t/c 14:18, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

MFD Results

A MFD you recently participated in, arguing to keep the content has been closed with a non-standard closure, requiring additional action to maintain the content. Please review my closing and participate with the required move action if you desire. Thank you, — xaosflux ^Talk 01:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The Red Carpet Grave

The anon deleted the template along with every other, which led me to believe it was blanking and not a dispute. Zazaban 19:15, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I hear ya, but with a prod, you really have to give the benefit of the doubt. I mean, there's not much point in putting it back on anyways. If it does get prod-deleted, all they need to do is pop into DRV, and it's back. If you really feel it's a delete, better to AFD it if it's possibly contested. It's safer. --UsaSatsui 21:15, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Your comments in the Gavin.collins RFC

You made your point well and were civil and persuasive while you did so. Thanks for your input there. Rray 14:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I really have nothing against the guy, but he's...stubborn. I don't want to see him blocked, he does contribute well to other areas, and his cleanup has done some good (would you believe there was a article on Blood points?)--UsaSatsui 14:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Ron Luther now listed for deletion

The prod at Ron Luther has been removed and is now listed for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ron Luther. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:45, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

List of Hahnian Organizations

My contention would be that the article is nonsense, and that nobody's going to look for the term in the first place, as the sockpuppet who created the article coined the term himself. Yes, redirects are cheap, but nobody's going to look for the term because it's at best a neologism. From what I can tell, the user just added in a bunch of stuff he thought was right, even if there was no evidence to support it. Therefore, I'm going to RfD it. MSJapan 19:21, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Feel free. I was just trying a bold solution. --UsaSatsui 21:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

EW Rumble PROD

I only changed the date because it was wrong, I added the PROD at 8PM, not after midnight (and yes I realize that the site for some odd reasons goes by UTC time). TJ Spyke 22:38, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Still, it's probably best to go by the time that pops up. If it goes 5 days, it can go 5 days 4 hours. --UsaSatsui 21:53, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:MOBY

Thanks for the compliment ("cute")! While much of what you wrote is interesting, I'd suggest that there's nothing in the Dick article whatsoever that covers the same ground, as I'm arguing that pointing to Dick is inherently a transgression of civility. Cheers. --Dweller 20:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Sometimes, people just don't realize they're acting like dicks. Pointing out their behavior can help them to be more civil themselves and reasonable. It can be highly insulting, but I don't believe it's inherently so, just because it uses the term "dick". As for the article, I think "Telling someone "Don't be a dick" is something of a dick-move in itself, so don't bandy the criticism about lightly." is what covers this ground. Perhaps it could be expanded on, but there it is. Anyways, DBAD is one of the core pillars of Wikipeida, so I think it deserves a little more respect than a cute shortcut rejoinder. --UsaSatsui 05:05, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

- The point is that while you may not think it's inherently uncivil to call people dicks, many people disagree with you. That's precisely the point of my essay. I have no objection to telling people that their behaviour is incorrect... but to admonish them in an uncivil way is to make yourself part of the problem. And finally, Trifecta is an essay, just like MOBY. Read it all the way to the very end. --Dweller 09:11, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

- - All I can say is "you're wrong". You can certainly tell someone they're being a dick without being uncivil. If someone does use it uncivilly, then sure, put them in their place. And Trifecta isn't an essay. It's a list of the three most important "rules" on Wikipedia. --UsaSatsui 16:59, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

- - - I have never seen WP:DICK applied in a civil manner to someone behaving badly, as opposed to a jocular reference between people behaving well. And WP:Trifecta is just someone's opinion. Many disagree with it. It's not a collection of "rules", as WP:DICK isn't even a guideline, let alone a policy. --Dweller 20:10, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

You are the diva of PRODs and AfDs

That is all. -- Craigtalbert 23:00, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Is that good, or bad? --UsaSatsui 23:06, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Principality of Estland

Hey UsaSatsui, just wanted to point out that for some reason you did take seriously a single edit IP who didn't explain anything and you removed the tag from the article following the example.BTW. the article has been created by one of the most busy sockpuppeteers on WP User:Tuulispask and it's been a pain to clean up the mess left behind. Anyway, I went on with the AFD like you suggested even though the article should have been just labeled with nonsense tag. The main question currently under discussion on AFD is that has came up, if the article is even better case than Upper Peninsula War. Just letting you know in case you don't want to miss the show. Thanks!--Termer 05:13, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. As for the prod, I was just doing PROD checking, I don't necessarily take the IP editor seriously. If a prod is contested, though, it it shouldn't be re-added. Unless it's obvious vandalism (a page-blank, or someone who is going around doing nothing but removing prods), removing the prod is contesting it. AFD is usually a better option for things like this anyways, a prod can be undeleted or recreated at any time, an article that has gone through AFD can be salted or G4'd if recreated. --UsaSatsui 13:04, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Change (song)

Do you mean to suggest here that you don't think the item immediately fails the criteria, and should not be deleted? Or do you contend that it does meet the criteria but that an RFD must happen? I don't believe there's any policy barring the prodding of redirects, when they serve no purpose and no one contests the deletion. If you are contesting the deletion, I'd like to hear your reasoning. --Cheeser1 15:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

It's simple. Prod isn't used on redirects. Only on articles and user pages. --UsaSatsui 05:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Would you mind pointing me to that policy? --Cheeser1 13:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Certainly. WP:PROD. Under "how it works": Only articles may be proposed for deletion. The only exceptions to this rule are pages in the User and User talk namespaces which may be proposed for deletion if the user has no recent edits and has made few or no contributions to the encyclopedia. --UsaSatsui 15:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

“Ethnic groups” in Cape Verde

Sorry, but I am new to Wikipedia, and I am not familiar with all the procedures yet. Why was the tag for deletion removed from the article Ethnic Groups in Cape Verde? Thank you. Ten Islands 09:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

There are a couple of deletion types on Wikipedia. Proposed Deletion (also known as "prod" is one that's used for deletions that aren't controversial. If someone disagrees with it, they can remove the tag, otherwise it's deleted after 5 days. That's the one you used. Someone removed the tag, and after it's been removed once, it's been contested. Articles for Deletion AFD is where the article should be listed now. Follow the directions there, and make sure your reason falls in with the deletion policies. If you need help, I can help with it. --UsaSatsui 17:12, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
- I’ve followed your suggestion, and tagged the article with AFD. Could you please follow my procedures to check if I am doing everything correctly? Thanks. Ten Islands 04:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  - You only did the first part. There's 3 steps to AFD something. Check here for details. I fixed it for you. Also, in your deletion reason, you should explain shortly your reasoning, not just a link elsewhere (though you can certainly include the links for more info) --UsaSatsui 05:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

PROD (2)

On Markham woods middle school, I know that I shouldn't have re-added the PROD tag. However, I am always suspicious when anon's remove them. And the PROD tag does suggest that the person removing it leave a comment in the edit summary or on the talk page, as to why they are removing it. - Rjd0060 06:20, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Suggest, but not require. The idea is to be 100% sure nobody objects to the article's deletion. Otherwise, it needs a discussion (does A7 apply to schools? May want to check) --UsaSatsui 15:54, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I've had bad luck tagging schools for A7. Never works. I'll just leave the tags that are there now for a week or so and see if there is any improvement. - Rjd0060 16:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Your edit

Re [1] you're mistaken on 2 counts. 1, you've miscounted the number of days he's been given - the article was recreated in his userspace on October 24th, meaning by the expiration of a prod, he would have had 2.5 weeks, not 5 days and 2, prodding rather than speedying (as would be more appropriate, given the terms under which The Rambling Man reposted the material) is actually incredibly unbitey and in the finest spirit of the project. Finally, if you have a problem with one of my edits, I'd rather you posted at my talk page where I'm bound to see it, rather than leaving a snipey edit summary somewhere. I think that's more appropriate not just for me, but for any editor in good standing. --Dweller 08:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, TRM only restored (and userfied) the article because I intervened and asked him to reconsider. See the newbie's talk page. --Dweller 10:59, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

2.5 weeks isn't a long time either. The editor is an active contributor and has been for over a year and a half. Sometimes it takes time to get an article together, and I don't see what's wrong with it. I hate seeing deletion tags that pretty much say, "You have X days to work on this, or it's gone!". That's what yours said, regardless of your intentions, and IMO, that isn't in the spirit of the project. Either the article should be deleted, or it shouldn't. Also, prod doesn't go on anything that's already been deleted.

I've been very lax with talk-page notifying, I admit it. I assume that people watch the pages they're working on if they still have any interest in them. I'll try and do better. --UsaSatsui 15:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I didn't create the Prod template. If you don't like it, you can try getting it amended or deleted. --Dweller 16:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Re. User talk:Sjtabler

Ever so sorry. Thanks for letting me know, my mistake entirely. I'll be a lot more careful in future. Regards, Schumi555 (talk) 20:56, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Question

[2] - Are you talking about my first sentence? Or the first sentence in the article? Scarian ^Talk 23:31, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

The article's. "Others contend" is one of the biggest weasel phrases I can think of. It indicates a clear POV intent with the article, and has been there since the start. --UsaSatsui (talk) 01:00, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah, okay. Thanks for responding. Have a nice day! Scarian ^Talk 09:16, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Dominic Ona-Ariki

I don't really have an opinion, though in general I'm against listing dissimilar things together. I was mostly removing a re-added prod someone else already removed, but it appeared discussion was warranted. That's all. --UsaSatsui (talk) 22:48, 22 November 2007 (UTC)