User talk:Soundvisions1/Talk/Archive/Archive5

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pam Evans

SEE: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pam Evans

Re: Did you know...

That is interesting. What is frustrating, though, is that this discussion has been like talking to a brick wall. With the exception of seresin, no one else wants to acknowledge that guidelines suggest there is a time limit. If you can't get admins to even admit their own policies and guidelines exist, how do you get them to enforce said guidelines and policies.

On top of that, Ruslik has basically accused me now of forum shopping by initiating a RFC on the guideline, despite the fact I'm not the one who initiated the DRV and the aims of the DRV and the RFC are slightly different.

I'm so tired at this point. Redfarmer (talk) 15:30, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree overall. The "how long" is not new to me although to the extent this has gone it is. I think what is more interesting is that up until a few weeks ago there was a clear guide for admins that clearly laid out that "A closing admin must determine whether any article violates policy, and where it is very unlikely that an article on the topic can exist without breaching policy, it must be respected above individual opinions.", in which case the entire OR discussion on the talk page for the last 11 months becomes 100% applicable. This now deleted paragraph clearly lists the OR policy and states it "cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus". The simple non consensus, non discussed, removal of that one paragraph ties into every single deletion discussion where any "editors' consensus" can allow articles (and userpages) to violate policy. Everything ties in and all it takes is one policy or guideline to be worded slightly different than the other and than all bets are off. I have no problems with a guideline or policy as long as it is followed but having a clear consensus that an article is never going to survive in one conversation and than have another conversation saying the first conversation does not matter because policy and guidlines don't apply "here" is sort of like - well, to be drastic in my example - the Senate hearing/investigation into September 11, 2001 when Condoleezza Rice was being questioned. (From memory - may not be 100% word for word) "I do not remember any reports to us, a kind of strategic warning, that planes might be used as weapons." "Are you familiar with this PDB from 1998?" "Yes" "What is the title?" "Bin Ladin Preparing to Hijack US Aircraft and Other Attacks" "And what is the title of this PDB from August 6, 2001?" "I believe the title was, Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States." Soundvisions1 (talk) 16:00, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Duplicate File:WhiteHeart1970.png

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on File:WhiteHeart1970.png, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because File:WhiteHeart1970.png is a duplicate of an already existing article, category or image.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting File:WhiteHeart1970.png, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 02:00, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

There image does not meet F1. It was/is not an unused image or other media file that is a redundant copy, in the same file format and same or lower quality/resolution, . The was a mis-tag. Please restore. (CC: CSDWarnBot and OrangeMike) Soundvisions1 (talk) 13:42, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Regarding this chain of edits, I edited first then looked after. My apologies. Feel free to address it however you wish - I just thought that, given that the other editor resized the original into a .jpg and the .png had been deleted, it was better to have the .jpg there than nothing.

If there is some way I can be of assistance on this, please don't hesitate to ask. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 03:41, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

(Big sigh) This just gets more and more complicated ... example Pdfpdf (talk) 03:45, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Lady Aleena/Television/Crossovers DRV Closure

1.Based on the existing policy and guideline wording how long does this "preferred version" get to sit in userspace before it does become a "long-term archival" version of an article "meant to be part of the encyclopedia"? Having reviewed the discussion I don't think that this can be answered with a specific number. Untill the community says otherwise is as good as you are going to get. We rarely set actionable deadlines because of WP:CCC and WP:DEADLINE and there is no consensus to do so in this case.

2.Did the closing admin ignore WP:DGFA guidelines? There is no consensu at the DRV (and in my own opinion no evidence in your complaint) that the admin did so so he is presumed to have not. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:29, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Wow - Very interesting. A breakdown of number 2:

Did the closing admin ignore WP:DGFA guidelines?

Eluchil404 opinion/statements:

1. There is no consensus at the DRV - True. Because the question was basically ignored.

2. in my own opinion no evidence in your complaint... - A failure to read the complaint, the discussion with the closing admin that lead to the complaint, the MfD or even the WP:AGF perhaps?

The DRV arose from a conversation with the closing admin, which was cited and linked to in the DRV. At play is the "rough Consensus" section of the WP:AGF which states, in part, that Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any). Arguments that contradict policy, are based on opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious, are frequently discounted.

Why don't we examine this again.

The issue: A user who likes watching television has several personal subpages related to television in ther userspace. In March of 2008 the user created a subpage for a proposed mainspace article about the television show I Love Lucy and it's spin offs. This user page was widely "advertised" on various television related talk pages. During March of 2008 there was active work being done on this proposed article. In April 2008 the work slowed and by May 2008 it had all but stopped. A total of 5 minor edits were made between May 2008 and October 2008. (i.e - 2 edits in May - one corrected the spelling of "Alins" to "Aliens" and the other added a colon (":") to the proposed title. In June there was only one edit to remove a link for a comic book "Alien vs Predator Vs Terminator; One edit in July to place the {{Underconstruction}} tag to indicate the proposed article was "in the middle of an expansion or major revamping, and is not yet ready for use"; Not touched until October when an internal Wikilink was corrected - "Emil Skoda" to "Emil Skoda (Law & Order)") In January of 2009 the page was sent to MfD. The following guidelines and polices are involved:

WP:OR - "Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, or arguments."

WP:NOT - "not a webhost" - "Wikipedia is not a blog, webspace provider, social networking, or memorial site" - "Further information: Wikipedia:User page"

Wikipedia:User page - "What about user subpages?" - "A work in progress, until it is ready to be released. [SNIP] "See also: #Copies of other pages"

Wikipedia:User page - "What may I not have on my user page?" - "Copies of other pages" - "While userpages and subpages can be used as a development ground for generating new content, this space is not intended to indefinitely archive your preferred version of disputed or previously deleted content or indefinitely archive permanent content that is meant to be part of the encyclopedia. In other words, Wikipedia is not a free web host. Private copies of pages that are being used solely for long-term archival purposes may be subject to deletion."

The MFD discussion for a "keep". (Opinions and arguments)

1. "Keep" - argument: "While OR might be a reason for asking that an article in mainspace be rewritten, it is not sufficient reason for a deletion in userspace, and is not all that strong a reason for deletion in mainspace" First issue is that the WP:OR policy makes no direct mention that the policy is not to ever be applied in userspace. Second is that this is a proposed article intended for mainspace and there is an associated talk page that has built up numerous comments over an 11 month period on how this proposed article is an original synthesis and would ever survive in mainspace. (The most recent (at the the time of the MfD) was January 13, 2009 and stated that the the proposed article was "dangerously close to violating WP's userpage policy - and WP is not a blog or web hosting service for personal research on pet theories and fannish hobbies.") It also appears the editor either did not look at the articles history, talk page, WP:USERPAGE, WP:NOT or misread them all because part of their argument for a "keep" was "userspace has no set time limits (and if it did it would not be under six months in any case.)" Clear issues: 1. this subpage has existed for almost one year, 11 months - not "under six months" 2. Userspace does have limits as clearly indicated by Wikipedia:User page which says that proposed articles in userspace ("development ground for generating new content") are not meant to be "indefinitely archive[d]", nor is "permanent content that is meant to be part of the encyclopedia" or, "In other words, Wikipedia is not a free web host".

2. Several other "keeps" follow the same variation on the theme - "the very fact that it is in userspace means it is not ready", "There is no deadline..." and "I frequently store things myself that look like original research until I've digged through the sources to find something to back it up." are three more. By these arguments, if they were found in existing policy, all MfD's for anything on userspace would cease - simply because they are in userspace. Are they valid opinions? Sure - but are they reflective of existing policy or guidelines? As of February 3, 2009, when the MfD closed - no they were not.

3. A "disturbing" one - The editor voiced a "keep" and followed with the reason: "The nominator had no business sending this to MFD. I consider this to be a breach of one's privacy, saying in effect "no, you cannot keep this page here".". I am still wanting to be pointed to what policy or guideline supports this argument.

4. An interesting breakdown of the Policy and guidelines - Opinion: "keep". Argument: "It's not violating policy" and to support this there is a breakdown of the definitions of "not a free web host" found at Wikipedia:User page - "It's not meant to be part of the encyclopedia yet. It's a work in progress, and shouldn't be forced into the mainspace." And, in regards to how long it has been sitting as it relates to "Copies of other pages" - "it is not a copy of another page or being used as a free webhost." Interesting - almost as interesting as the fact Heroes is a spin off of the I Love Lucy show as presented in the proposed article.

5. An editor voices a "keep" opinion on the last day od the discussion and follows it with the argument "I can't find any policy or guideline this violates" so cites an essay to back up why they said "keep". Two days after voicing that opinion the same user was asking questions about deletion discussions and stated they were a new user and that they were "primarily here to learn how policy and guidelines are decided" and as such were "still very open to suggestions, and my opinions are likely to change."

6. Only one editor who voiced a "keep" seemed to have actually looked into the history and read the talk page. This editor said "I'm willing to let this one bake for a bit" and followed it with a "warning" that indicates the article is in violation of WP:OR - "A caution to the author: you really need a graphic to illustrate the inheritance chain, and you need to dump the reliance on things like "Morleys" cigarettes. There's an enormous difference between a named character from one show making an appearance on the other, and the set dresser on two different shows grabbing the same pack of fake cigarettes out of the prop department"

Lets look at WP:DGFA now and relate it to this. First, by doing a head count we see 8 people voiced a "keep" and 2 people (3 if you count the nom) voiced a delete. However - it is accepted practice, and suggested by the deletion guide, that "Consensus is not determined by counting heads". So now the closing admin must read the arguments and any that "contradict policy, are based on opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious" should be "discounted". We must skip a head a bit to see that the closing admin stated three times that all the arguments were rather persuasive and that all the "keep" arguments were "valid". So if that is "true" than:

1. There must be a hidden Policy that clearly states that MfD's are "breach of one's privacy"

2. There must be a hidden Policy that states personal opinion, in the form of an essay, can supersede any visible policy.

3. There must be a hidden Policy that clearly says an original synthesis of guidlines based on policy can supersede visible policy.

4. WP:NOT as it relates to WP:USERPAGE is invalid and that fact was not publicly corrected prior to the closing of this MfD.

or...

1. The closing admin failed to read and follow the guidlines found at WP:DGFA under "Rough consensus" and instead simply did a "head count".

The MfD, which was brought because a proposed article about the I Love Lucy show and it's spin offs had not been significantly worked worked on in many months and, based on a long talk page, had established the propsed article would not ever make it as a mainspace article as it failed the Wikipedia:No original research policy. During the course of the MfD guidelines found at Wikipedia:Subpages#Disallowed uses and "What may I not have on my user page?" - subsection "Copies of other pages" were cited along with the "Not a free web host" policy.

A. Opinions alone showed a "keep" at the close of the MfD however it was the arguments used to support most of those "keep" opinions that raised concern, in particular the arguments that implied there were no guidelines or policy that covered userpages, subpages or what Wikipedia is "Not". Also one very troubling argument that said the MfD violated the users privacy. When the closing admin was questioned directly about these arguments the admin showed a basic misunderstanding of the issues by saying, instead, that Soundvisions1 might "misunderstand the purpose of MFD (and XFD in general) discussions" Further the closing admin went on to discuss why Soundvisions1's argument of WP:OR failed, despite Soundvisions1 never having made that argument. They also went on to say that "In my opinion all votes were based on policy" and that "All participants substantiated their votes with rather persuasive arguments" thusly there was no need "to disregard any votes and gave them equal weight in accordance with WP:DGFA" The admin concluded "So the votes were 8 keep and 3 delete" and that "In the last 4 days all votes were to keep".

A1. Upon reading the admins response it raised more concern. First the admin did not directly reply to the "No guideline or policy" arguments nor the "breach of privacy" argument. Likewise the repeated use of the word "votes" and that "all votes" were valid because the "votes" were "based on policy" raised other concerns. A follow up question was given that explicitly cited the WP:DGFA and directly asked the closing admin to "Please direct me to the policy or guideline that states any MFD for a user page is a "violation of privacy". Also please explain how that argument was "rather persuasive" to you."It was also requested that the closing admin "Please explain what the following wordings mean" in relation to the cited Policy and guidelines. The closing admin was reminded that part of the original nom was that "this user admitted to us on the talk page that they are attempting to form a thesis that a vast amount of shows are crossovers from I Love Lucy, which is definitely OR at its worst." The closing admin failed to address the questions and stated "You lost the discussion" and emphasized, again, that "all" the "keeps" "had strong arguments behind them". The admin also pointedly said "If you think that opinions of two editors+nominator constitute a consensus to delete (despite serious objections from 8 other editors) you can try your luck on DRV. Otherwise this discussion is meaningless." So it was sent to DRV - however it was not sent to DRV to overturn the "keep" nor was that ever one of the issues raised with the closing admin.

B. The Drv was brought, re-asking the same core quesiton asked of the closing admin and stated it was not a DRV to overturn the "keep". The very first response was from the closing admin who refused to address any issues of the DRV and instead explained the MfD closing procedures were followed (not any issue raised - it was the DGFA closing that was the issue) and that "The result was clear-cut" and pointed out that "all votes in the last several days of the discussion were keeps, and nobody was willing to support deletion.". In response to that another editor asked if the closing admin was "admitting that, in violation of WP:DGFA, you counted votes rather than weighed the quality of the arguments?". There was never any response. But lest we "assume bad faith" and imply that the admins failure to answer these questions indicates they did simply count "votes" and ignore any arguments we can turn to at least one other editor who, when pressed, stated that the "breach of one's privacy" argument was "bad enough that it can be simply ignored" and that "It is obviously not at all a good argument". This editor was quick to also point out that is was only one editor who made that argument and "The general trend observed holds without that user". However a follow up quesiton about an admitted "newbie" who gave a "keep" opinion but, because they could not find any related guidelines or Policy, cited their reason for a keep as an essay, went unanswered.

This MfD and DRV seemed to have exposed a growing issue at Wikipedia. As I am typing this there is an RFC about the usefulness of the WP:NOT - "not a webhost" definitions found at Wikipedia:UP#Copies of other pages. The wording of WP:DGFA is being discussed and there is even a discussion, unrelated to this, about nominating the notability guidelines for deletion. I am seeing the vocal "keep everything" contingent growing stronger while those who feel that the policies and guidelines need to be followed, including those for admins, failing to be taken seriously. Soundvisions1 (talk) 05:17, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Dzstudios update

FYI, User:Dzstudios is confirmed to be DZ Studios Photography. Regards, howcheng {chat} 18:40, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Heart1973 BC.png listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Heart1973 BC.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. howcheng {chat} 18:08, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Hope all is well

Hi. I realized that I hadn't seen you around in a while, and a check tells me you haven't edited logged in for almost two months. Hope all is well with you and you have been distracted by happy things. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:37, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Having recently deleted a number of images incorrectly tagged as own work by the uploader, I am now much more sympathetic to the work you've done here and demand your immediate return.
Or, well, just carry on being distracted by happy things, your choice. :)
Cheers, Amalthea 20:09, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Ajoykelly

Hello Soundvisions1, You contacted me last year. My apologies for not getting in touch sooner, I have not logged on for some time. I also apologise, as I am not certain what your issues are with my user page. Perhaps you could clarify? Many thanks, Amanda

AJ Kelly (talk) 20:02, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Di-no author

Template:Di-no author has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Stifle (talk) 10:48, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

File:Adrienne Papp.jpg

I have removed the {{ffd}} tag you placed on File:Adrienne Papp.jpg. I did this because you didn't create a discussion for this image, and I can find no evidence of the reason. If you still think it should be deleted, feel free to renominate it. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:03, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Same with File:Afiche refugio web.jpg. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:04, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Conversation found at User talk:Od Mishehu#File:Adrienne Papp.jpg

Same issue with File:Resurrectionm.JPG. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:23, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

adn with File:Reunion pix 001-1jpg.jpg. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:24, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Od Mishehu - Just wondering why, again, you posted on this page about images that I tagged several years ago WITHOUT DOING ANY RESEARCH first? If you see AN OBVIOUS COPYVIO (such as File:Resurrectionm.JPG) that is still here with a bogus license than FIX IT!!! Be bold!! Not only that but IF YOU DID ANYTHING MORE THAN POST HERE you would see that THE IMAGE IS ALSO ORPHANED DUE TO DELETION OF Midwest Mafia on "18:17, March 6, 2008" (Read the date again - March 6, 2008 and today is May 22, 2010 - that is OVER TWO YEARS AGO. Likewise on "26 August 2007" (Read that year again - 2007) the uploader of File:Reunion pix 001-1jpg.jpg was told "The file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear." And on "1 November 2008" I tagged it for deletion. Most likely this is an orphaned image from the deletion of Captain Volcano and the Harmonic Tremors on "August 26, 2007" (Read again - parent article deleted August 26, 2007 - ALMOST 3 YEARS AGO, one day after the article, and image, were created on Wikipedia) Again, as with the first postings, DO RESEARCH before you make pointless posts here, or anywhere. As you seem to be in the habit of doing this over and over than please read, and understand, this: any further posting here with a "Same issue" messages will result in you being issued a Vandalsim warning. Soundvisions1 (talk) 03:40, 23 May 2010 (UTC)