User talk:28bytes/Archive 16

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

DYK for Bad Lip Reading

The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Jud Süß (1940 film)

I have just made a major transformation and expansion of Jud Süß (1940 film). that I think qualifies it for the DYK section of the main page. Would you be willing to walk it through the process of being included? Never mind, I just realized that a five-fold expansion is required to qualify. You might take a look at it anyway and let me know what you think. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 04:38, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Please userfy and bring back the Leaders Against Discrimination page

I understand that it wasn't userfied, however the website I was trying to link it to was banned because it was a subdomain based on a domain that was banned. I wanted to insert the page leaders against discrimination.co.cc but the co.cc was banned. Shaanbham (talk) 16:25, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

 Done. The page is now at User:Shaanbham/drafts/Leaders Against Discrimination. 28bytes (talk) 16:36, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Stubs

You contributed to a recent discussion about an editor who was creating many stubs. The conclusion was that this was just a case of a prolific editor, with no violation of policy. There remains a question about whether very small stubs are useful, regardless of how they are created. You may want to contribute to the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Stub/Archive 15#Minimum size. Thanks, Aymatth2 (talk) 19:24, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Unblock

Your acccont in Wikipedia id has been unblocked.Stephen (talk) 03:04, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! 28bytes (talk) 03:06, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Are you aware of WP:MASSCREATION?

I'm thinking not (even though it was mentioned in both discussions), as I see you closed 2 discussions at WP:AN recently claiming that no policy forbids mass creation of stubs. See also Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 66#Automated creation of stubs for the discussion relating to that policy section. Perhaps someone should start a new discussion at WP:VPP to see if consensus has changed on that point, but until then no good comes of denying it exists. Anomie⚔ 20:42, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

On looking into this further, I'm forced to concede you're right. I'm not 100% sure un-closing the closed AN discussions would be productive, but I'm open to doing that if you think that's the best way forward. Thoughts? 28bytes (talk) 21:09, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

The point is really moot, as nothing would come of either of the discussions you closed anyway. In a normal case we'd tell the editor to stop until the community decides whether these articles really should exist, but these are "major content creators" so we just let them go ahead despite any objections. Anomie⚔ 21:21, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

ArbCOM

Danke---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 20:51, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Always happy to acknowledge words of wisdom! 28bytes (talk) 21:47, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrator?

I'm sure you'd make a great arbitrator :) .Jasper Deng (talk) 21:54, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the vote of confidence, but there is not enough money in the world that could convince me to take that job. 28bytes (talk) 22:10, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

More words of wisdom.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 06:32, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Trying to be funny

I sure hope that this wasn't going to far xD.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:47, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Eh, people might take the "gunning you down" bit the wrong way, you might want to lose that. I know it's all innocent humor, but ya gotta be careful about humor around here, unfortunately. 28bytes (talk) 04:55, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Disclaimed the humor and made it less gory.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:58, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

The problem with text based humour is that you lose all the nuance's of body language and tone of voice, it's very easy to get yourself stuck. Especially since you're putting that on your page for everyone to read, rather than to an individual editor. However, I think you've done a good job of modifying that. Worm^TT · (talk) 05:12, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Newbie (i know)

I got my Wikipedia Account about a year ago but got super busy with school. Well, now I'm back! I need someone with the know-how since I never really learned coding. Could we be partners in making articles??? Firefoxcub (talk) 04:35, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, my online time is somewhat limited at the moment, but my door is always open if you have specific questions. 28bytes (talk) 05:51, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

DYK for The Vietnamization of New Jersey

--v/r - TP 01:34, 15 November 2011 (UTC) 08:09, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Notification of RfD

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion#Wikipedia:Run_to_Mommy you might be interested in. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 00:07, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Interesting Statistics

Your comment in the above WP:AN thread hits the nail on the head :-) Nyttend (talk) 11:53, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. :) 28bytes (talk) 13:52, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Peachspillz12

hi i am peachspillz911 a.k.a. peachspillz12. could you do me the fsvor of telling me why you banned me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peachspillz911 (talk • contribs) 20:32, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

You were blocked because your edits were mostly vandalism and hoaxes. You can request an unblock by following the instructions in the big red box on your talk page, but you will need to log in as User:Peachspillz12 to do so. You can also e-mail an unblock request to unblock-en-llists.wikimedia.org. 28bytes (talk) 21:14, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Webby

If Webby had said No I will not be disruptive if I am blocked would that not have helped his case? Also I did drop the matter of his 'veield threat' when it was obvious he would not give a straight answer.Slatersteven (talk) 20:37, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

It probably would have helped his case. But once he made it clear he wasn't going to say that, there was really no need to ask him again and again and again. I have to give him credit, actually, for not saying something that would help his case if he didn't think it was true. 28bytes (talk) 20:44, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

As I said after about the 4 request that I would not ask again, and did not, his reponse being to make a snide comment (to which I stupidly replied). I would also point out that some of my interaction here ws in fact more constructive then has been implied in some of the posts, at least two of my ideas being accepted by Webby (though one was pointless).Slatersteven (talk) 20:50, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

My general approach to such things is to ask once; if the answer is unclear, ask for clarification, and past that, just leave it be. 4 requests is just way too many, in my opinion. It's also important to consider that even if he had acceded to every request you made of him, you still didn't have the power to unblock him. (Indeed, I'm an admin and I didn't have the power to unblock him, since to do so would be to exacerbate a wheel war already in progress.) So in a sense, making any requests of him in that venue were just having the effect of jerking him around, although I should stress that I don't think that was your intention. 28bytes (talk) 21:08, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

As I said I relaalised I should have droped it earlier (But I only relaised that I was being draged in a bit too late). I know I have no power to block him, but I had a question and what other venue did I have? and I was not aware that only those with the power to block or unblock were allowed to ask questions in such cases. It seemed to me that no one had asked a simple question (and indead no one did) which was very germain to his unblock request (I was also unaware if the ANI at the time I stated this), I did not relasie there was a wheel war going on). In fact (if I reacall after Imade my comments at ANI I had droped the matter on his talk page.Slatersteven (talk) 21:17, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

You certainly have the power to ask questions of a blocked user, and one person asking a single question one time is probably fine. And your question was perfectly reasonable. But when they don't give the answer you want, I'd just leave it at that. 28bytes (talk) 21:41, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I realsie that, as I said I goit draged in and should have disengaged.Slatersteven (talk) 21:51, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like we're on the same page then! :) Happy editing. 28bytes (talk) 21:52, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Stalled and urgent edit filter request

Posting at AN did not get attention to my request here, which is badly needed because this banned vandal uses open proxies (even blocked ones), but always does the same thing.Jasper Deng (talk) 05:40, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Somebody'll get to it. It's just dumb trolling, nothing to get too worked up over. 28bytes (talk) 05:47, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

After one week no one has gotten to it, and it'll save admins a ton of time.Jasper Deng (talk) 05:53, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Pirates

hi 28bytes i am Metallichalo, i am a huge pirates of the caribbean fan! do you know if they have relesed any new of the fifth movie? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Metallichalo (talk • contribs) 21:10, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

No idea. 28bytes (talk) 21:25, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Is revision deletion appropriate/available for a persistent vandal?

Hi, I'm looking for advice about whether revision deletion would be helpful/available in dealing with this long-term abuser. I'm the editor who created her LTA page; I've logged out to post this because she stalks my contributions, and for obvious reasons I'd rather not alert her to this discussion just yet, so I'll follow discussion here.

In brief, she's obsessed with Ronald Ryan and 'fixing' his article to assert his innocence. In pursuit of this she's been using sock puppets, open proxies, lying about sources, legal threats, etc etc. She's been hammering away at the article for five years now; depending on what's semi-ed at the time, she'll spill over onto its talk page, or related articles like Wrongful execution, or talk pages for myself and for admins who've blocked her or semi-ed the page. It starts out as POV-pushing but tends to end up as abuse and harassment - loony stuff like this attack on me, or this attack on a man who's been dead almost fifty years. She's even taken to following my contributions to totally unrelated pages and attacking those.

She invariably gets reverted and her proxies get blocked, but she keeps coming back - between the harassment of me and the disruption she's causing at Ronald Ryan etc, it gets a bit tiresome. It seems part of the reason she persists is the awareness that even when reverted, her edits will still show up in article histories - see comments like "Remember this.... deletion of contents remains permanent on history records for all to read" and "Read more in history records. Wiki dont want any one to know". I think her activity could be considered as "purely disruptive material", and I wonder whether redaction could be considered as a way to discourage her, since it would deny her the ability to use article history sections as a soapbox. --114.77.43.10 (talk) 08:54, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. Tricky situation. I know there's been some controversy in the past about whether RD3 is appropriate in these cases, and I'm not sure where the consensus is on that, to be honest. Check with MuZemike. He has a lot of experience with both LTA and using RD to combat it, and I know he has a much better understanding of the do's and don'ts regarding that than I do. Sorry to pass the buck, but I don't want to tell you "no" when "yes" would be more appropriate, or vice versa. 28bytes (talk) 16:55, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm happy to follow a reference :-) I'll ask him. --114.77.43.10 (talk) 12:28, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Basil W. Spalding

To whom it may concern,

Hello. I can imagine your busy so don't feel offended if I just jump right on to the point here. First of all, believe me that what I'm about to say is the truth and I really hope you will allow me to fulfill my wish. I recently started an article titled (Basil W. Spalding). I can give you a summary of what I plan to add if you want? Anyway, I do not exaggerate when I say that I honestly think you should consider allowing me to contiune and not to delete it. Basil Spalding was a very interesting man who is connected to many famous people and places, the people and places can all be found in Wikipedia. I mean no offense to anyone, but there are articles in Wikipedia that are far less interesting and helpful. Please reconsider, you'll be glad you did.

Thanks a lot! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abdullah-b-h (talk • contribs) 16:31, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I recommend using the articles for creation process; this will help ensure your article contains enough reliable source references to demonstrate notability. 28bytes (talk) 17:39, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes

You're a fan ofYes? So am I! Cool inuitu –– contributions defcons 23:24, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Camilo Sanchez

Are you sure he doesn't deserve a block? 1) Using homosexual in a derogatory way, 2) Suggesting another editor go get fisted, 3) Suggesting an editor take a pic while getting fisted to use instead, 4) edit warring. I think this guy should be blocked for a week.--v/r - TP 00:46, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I have no objections to a block. I was very, very close to doing so myself. 28bytes (talk) 01:07, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll block at the next personal attack or revert; if someone else doesn't get there first. I hate blocking after someone issues a warning.--v/r - TP 02:23, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. Perhaps he'll heed the warning and knock it off, which would be even better. 28bytes (talk) 02:24, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

RFA thankspam

Thank you for your support at my recent successful RFA. Being now the new fellow in the fraternity of administrators, I will do my best to live up to the confidence shown in me by others, will move slowly and carefully when using the mop, will seek input from others before any action of which I might be unsure, and will try not to break anything beyond repair. Best, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:49, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Interesting...

Couldn't help but notice this. Having a bit of a read? I do quite often myself too, to reflect etc. Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 20:06, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Heh. I do peruse old RfAs from time to time, but in this case I was trying to unwatch something just above it in my watchlist and misclicked. Nothing quite like editing a closed RfA to draw eyes to my poor clicking skills. :) 28bytes (talk) 20:13, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Bot?

I think it would be useful to create a bot to help me RIBI (as opposed to RBI) on User talk:Jasper Deng/Nonconfirmed and IP talk pages frequented by this guy. But, I don't have the skills necessary to create a PHP program that runs in CLI, nor do I have the regex experience.Jasper Deng (talk) 05:39, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

How would a bot distinguish those edits from other IP edits? 28bytes (talk) 06:27, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

The edit rate would be the alarm. No IP should be making that many edits of that kind within so little time.Jasper Deng (talk) 18:30, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Yogurt

I was wondering who'd be brave enough to close that - much respect ;-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:57, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Heh. I figured I'd get at least one message about that; wasn't sure who it'd be from, though. :) 28bytes (talk) 22:03, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Seconded. Must have been daunting, but the right decision I think (at the very least it's a decision!) pablo 22:06, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. :) 28bytes (talk) 22:12, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for reading through the entire discussion and coming to a decision. Obviously I disagree with your close, but it's not the end of the world so I haven't come here to give you grief about it :) Just one thing I wanted to clarify: your reading of the consensus was that, even though the article had been at the same title for basically eight years, that title was still not "established" in the context of ENGVAR? (Just curious in case a similar issue ever comes up at RM.) Best, Jenks24 (talk) 15:00, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
  • My reading is that the "established" used in ENGVAR is synonymous with "settled", rather than "first used." I don't think it's fair to say that the debate ever "settled" on the title, judging from both the talk page history and the page move histories. I see editors – admins in many cases – moving the page back and forth many times over the past 8 years. Indeed, it's been so contentious it's (rightfully) merited an entry at WP:LAME, and even that gets occasionally edit-warred over. I think the only way out of this mess is to go with the language that RETAIN offers us, i.e., to use an objective standard that doesn't bias us towards one particular flavo(u)r of English: whichever variant the person who wrote the first non-stub version of the article chose. 28bytes (talk) 16:11, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
    • Fair enough, thanks for the clarification. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 16:36, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	I've seen you around for a while and you've always kept a cool head and I've never seen you get frustrated wherever you are on the Wiki :) Keep on moppin'. ;) HurricaneFan25 22:45, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! That's very kind of you. 28bytes (talk) 22:59, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

No, no. You deserve two.

		The Admin's Barnstar
		Difficult decisions are never easy to make, especially in heated, lengthy, or protracted debates. When you are willing to get involved where others wouldn't dare, you show your wikibravery. Carry on. Kai445 (talk) 23:02, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Ha ha! Thank you very much. 28bytes (talk) 23:03, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Need Help with a Page Merger

Per a discussion on User:RadioFan's talk page, I am requesting WQHS Radio be merged with WXPN. The WQHS article (an unlicensed station which RadioFan PROD'd) is the predecessor of the current WXPN. Both stations are owned by the University of Pennsylvania and located in Philadelphia. The only difference is WQHS is no longer on the air (as far as anyone can tell), plus it is unlicensed, which makes it non-notable under WP:N, as such, it then fails the GNG. Though WXPN does have a license and is notable, so the information should go there, which RadioFan and I have agreed on. So, could you merge the two articles, please? Thanks...Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:11, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

For a second there I thought you meant a history merge, which wouldn't be doable because of the parallel histories. If you're just looking for a neutral/uninvolved editor to merge the contents editorially and redirect one to the other, sure, I can do that. 28bytes (talk) 20:18, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

(Do drop a note here to let me know whether that's what you're looking for.) 28bytes (talk) 20:29, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, the neutral editor part. :) Observation: I actually thought we have a way to merge histories now. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:31, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I've got to run to a meeting in a little bit, but will handle the merger tonight when I return. Regarding history merges, it's technically possible to merge them, but would be a big mess (see WP:HISTMERGE#Parallel_versions if you want the boring details.) A "normal" merger with a redirect in place is a lot cleaner in these cases. 28bytes (talk) 20:36, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I knew there was a way, but I remember (now) it being a mess and not many admins doing it. I am going to dePROD the article, just for safety sake (so it doesn't get deleted early) and will look for your merger when I get up (insomnia got me today). Thanks again...Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:46, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi NH. Unfortunately I'm going to have to kick this over to tomorrow night's to-do list; I'm simply too exhausted to do much cogent editing tonight. Sorry for the delay. 28bytes (talk) 03:55, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

No problem, the page is still dePROD'd with an edit summary note, so it isn't going anywhere. Hope you got some sleep from last night. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 13:38, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:NWA.Rep

Hi 28bytes. Thank you for closing Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:NWA.Rep, a contentious discussion. I have two requests:

1. Would you add to your closing rationale what the consensus was regarding WP:SMI? If NWA.Rep (talk · contribs) chooses to recreate his user page, this will provide guidance as to whether his "new messages" banner is allowed.
2. Does User:NWA.Rep/Andre DeAngelo Wallace Jr, which was created during the MfD, violate the consensus at the MfD regarding WP:FAKEARTICLE?

Thanks, Cunard (talk) 21:20, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Cunard. I did not mention WP:SMI explicitly in my close, but the concerns expressed that the userpage ran afoul of it were indeed well-founded, and I was implicitly including that in the "number of other policies and guidelines" phrase in my close. There were so many guideline and policy grounds for objecting to the userpage presented that I decided not to recap all of them individually in the close. Regarding the subpage, I don't believe there was enough explicit discussion of it to warrant inclusion in the closing rationale/result; please see my further comments on that below. 28bytes (talk) 03:52, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

There was a note to the closing administrator which seems to have gone unnoticed. Oh well. →Στc. 21:21, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree that 28bytes may have forgotten the note when he read the rest of the discussion, but your flippant "oh well" is wholly unnecessary. 28bytes will address whether the page should be deleted when he returns. Cunard (talk) 21:31, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

That discussion was extremely long. Given the location of the note, it is quite possible 28bytes missed it. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 21:52, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I did see Σ's note before I closed, actually. The problem was, none of the other participants referred to it, and it was not added to the top of the page as is commonly done with group nominations, so it would be going too far, in my opinion, for the closing admin to simply assume that the participants agreed with Σ that that page had to be deleted too. It's entirely possible that there would be a different consensus if that page were explicitly included, since "root" user pages are much more "in your face" than a user subpage. The UI spoofing, for example, is much more disruptive, in my opinion, when used on a root user or user talk page than it would be on some subpage no one may ever visit. My suggestion would be to MfD that page separately, noting the precedent in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:NWA.Rep if desired, to get a clear consensus one way or another. That may seem overly pedantic or bureaucratic of me, but I simply don't feel there was sufficient discussion specifically regarding that subpage for me to feel comfortable saying there was a consensus to delete it. 28bytes (talk) 02:34, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Would you add a note about the UI spoofing to your MfD close? It's implicitly mentioned ("and a number of other policies and guidelines") but that will likely be insufficient. That the UI spoofing was not explicitly discussed in your closing statement may lead some to conclude that restoring the new messages banner to the root user page is acceptable.

I disagree that the subpage's content was not discussed by the MfD participants. User:NWA.Rep/Andre DeAngelo Wallace Jr is a copy and paste of content from the now deleted User:NWA.Rep. MfD participants invoked WP:FAKEARTICLE and WP:BLP when they supported deleting the biographical content.

The nomination statement by Alpha Quadrant invoked WP:FAKEARTICLE and WP:BLP. The vote by Σ (talk · contribs) noted the "unsourced controversial biographical content", which Σ noted was copy and pasted to User:NWA.Rep/Andre DeAngelo Wallace Jr.

Hurricanefan25 (talk · contribs) wrote, "Userpage's BLP-like content contains more violations than I can count of WP:UP#NOT." JamesBWatson (talk · contribs) wrote, "Inappropriate as a user page per WP:FAKEARTICLE, and inappropriate anywhere per WP:BLP."

Robofish (talk · contribs) invoked WP:FAKEARTICLE, Kleinzach (talk · contribs) voted "delete" per Robofish and Hurricanfan25, and M.O.X (talk · contribs) voted "delete" per JamesBWatson and HurricaneFan25.

I believe {{db-repost}} is applicable to the page because it contains identical content to that deemed to be inappropriate by MfD participants. Please consider deleting the page. A second contentious MfD of content MfD participants considered inappropriate is undesirable. Cunard (talk) 04:08, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to have adequate time this evening to give your comments the consideration they deserve, but I will revisit this when I return online tomorrow. 28bytes (talk) 04:19, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

No worries. To add to what I wrote above: The nomination statement by Alpha Quadrant (talk · contribs) focused exclusively on the inappropriate biography in the user page. His deletion rationale would be applicable whether the page was a root user page or a user subpage. A violation of WP:FAKEARTICLE and WP:BLP in the root user page should not be dealt with differently in a user subpage. Although the latter is less visible, it is a violation nonetheless. Cunard (talk) 04:40, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

After giving it some thought I have clarified my close to explicitly mention WP:BLP and WP:SMI. Regarding the subpage, I see Sven Manguard has initiated an MfD for that, so it's probably best to let that run its course. 28bytes (talk) 15:03, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarifications to your close. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:NWA.Rep/Andre DeAngelo Wallace Jr has caused the user more distress and caused him to make this edit, which is concerning. Cunard (talk) 06:03, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. I assume since it's back-dated to the 10th it refers to the death of his userpage rather than something more alarming but I have e-mailed the WMF, just in case. 28bytes (talk) 06:13, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Your conjecture is the most likely explanation. It's a day off from your 11 December closure of the MfD, though perhaps it's because of timezone differences. In any case, thank you for emailing the WMF, whose staff will have the experience to determine whether anything should be done. Cunard (talk) 06:24, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

• 28bytes, could you also take another look at Anna Frodesiak's comments here,here and here? All the "delete" !votes were placed before she persuaded NWA.Rep to voluntarily remove the offensive political contents from his page. Please reconsider. Deleting a userpage, especially right after the user has shown himself somewhat amenable, is a pretty extreme action. Bishonen | talk 01:05, 12 December 2011 (UTC).
  • Hi Bishonen. I did consider the discussion in light of removal of the China image section. I could have relisted it, but it seemed to me that the concerns expressed by the participants went well beyond the China section that NWA.Rep, to his credit, removed. If the comments were by and large about the China section, I probably would have relisted, but the WP:FAKEARTICLE, WP:POLEMIC, WP:BLP, and UI spoofing concerns (among others) were directed at the rest of the page as well. Several of the MfD participants even took the time to detail their objections to the page line by line, and it's clear their concerns were – for right or wrong – much more broad than the China section. I will admit, the timing was unfortunate, and I feel bad that Anna Frodesiak's good faith mediation and NWA.Rep's good-faith acceptance of her advice didn't change the overall result. But I think that NWA.Rep would have had to do a lot more compromising to change the result, and I'm not sure he would have been willing to do so. 28bytes (talk) 03:33, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Yogurt

While I cannot substantively complain of restoring the spelling I use myself, it does seem a loss to the encyclopedia to remove one of the more obvious cases of using a United Kingdom spelling.

Your close makes no mention of the paragraph of WP:RETAIN for which it is named:

When an English variety's consistent usage has been established in an article, it is maintained in the absence of consensus to the contrary. With few exceptions (e.g. when a topic has strong national ties or a term/spelling carries less ambiguity), there is no valid reason for such a change.

Please reconsider your close in this light. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:57, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree, the encyclopedia is much better off demonstrating its respect for non-US spellings by leaving them alone. I find the dialectic diversity quite endearing, actually, which is why things like this piece of American chauvinism piss me off enormously, and why I'm quick to reinstate spellings that I never use myself, in defense of that diversity, and of WP:ENGVAR.

The problem with Yog(h)urt, though, is that there was, starting in 2004 and continuing (on and off) for another seven years, clear dissatisfaction that the paragraph you quote was violated by moving the page away from its initial spelling variant in 2003. Given the constant battling since then, it's not at all clear to me that there was ever sufficient consensus on the "h" title to fairly call it "established". I think the term "established" implies a certain amount of stability, if not definitive consensus, that that article never had. With the lack of such "establishment", we have to look at the subsequent text of WP:RETAIN, and the guidance that it offers was, in the view of a clear consensus of the participants in the move discussion, the guidance that should be applied to the article. 28bytes (talk) 03:06, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that cesium/caesium move was in poor taste, and without any legitimacy. As for Yogurt in the context of the British Commonwealth, we already discussed the fact that it is not a "British" variety with an H any more than without (Officially, as per the current OED [oed.com], newest Oxford Style Manual, the British Dairy Council [milk.co.uk], and virtually every pot of yogurt sold in the UK, yogurt is used (I point you to the British vote of support who said he went to his local London market and couldn't even find "Yoghurt" on any cup, which was good enough for him to support a move). In practical (everyday, common) usage, both are about equal, but Yoghurt is only losing ground as time passes. Time marches on, don't get stuck in the past! -Kai445 (talk) 05:55, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

A Suggestion

Heyas, might I suggest an article that I created (shameless promotion) that might help with any "please stop deleting my page" and "why did you delete my page" posts you might have received. It's User:Neutralhomer/WWMAD. What I do is just post it as {{subst:User:Neutralhomer/WWMAD}}~~~~ and it creates the section header and signs it itself, just a copy/paste job. It might help so you won't have to constantly answer those posts. Just slap the template on their talk page. Feel free to tinker with the page at User:Neutralhomer/WWMAD, if you like. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:52, 13 December 2011 (UTC)