User talk:Fram/Archive 8

Deletion of "Subject to Change (Artist Collective)

Fram, I understand why you deleted the page for the artist collective (of which I am a member). I'm new to wikipedia and I did not do a full upload of the article that I am working on. I just put up the "skeleton" article in the hope that I could add to it over the next few days so as to establish notability. As you can see on the 'artist collective' page proper, there are many collectives listed and many of these collectives have their own articles, I was just hoping to add our collective to the mix. Will there be a problem when I upload a full article? Or does this fall under the category of 'wait and see'? Thank you, --Red Thread Leaf 23:47, 10 October 2007 (UTC)Red Thread Leaf

The main problem is that there has to be a (verifiable) claim to notability for the collective. Existence on its own is not enough, nor are talent, nethusiasm, intentions, ... Has the collective been discussed in newspapers, professional art magazines, books, ...? Have they been the subject of significant exhibitions (which would normally have lead to discussion in newspapers, magazines, ...)? Have they received any major awards? In short, have they received independent, significant attention which is evidenced in any publication? If not, then the article will probably not survive. As for you being a member of the collective: while it is not forbidden, in general it is not a good idea to write about things that you are a member of (collective, bands, companies, families, ...), as that represents a conflict of interest which makes it much harder to keep a neutral point of view, which is required for all our articles. Fram 07:08, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

DYK update

You mentioned at T:DYK, "Updated! (My first time, so please correct any errors and let me know what I did wrong)" I think you forgot to notify the contributors who created and nominated the articles for DYK, as well as leaving a notice on the talk pages. I went ahead and did this. Also, the newest additions should be copied to Wikipedia:Recent additions, and Template:Did you know/Next update should be cleared per instructions

I'm still rather new at doing DYK updates and additions, so I've forgotten these steps myself. There are several things to do, and it would be nice to have a script that does all the updates. I've experimented with the script User:Henrik/js/dyk-notifier.js, which appears to be able to do the DYK updates on user talk pages and article talk pages, but I'm not sure it's doing everything there. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 16:06, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I also think you are suppose to wait until at least 6 hours havbe passed since the last update and in this case I think you were 10 minutes early.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:05, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you both. To start with the last: the timer indicated that almost twelve hours had passed, that's why I felt the need to update it myself. Looking back, I notice that the updater before me had forgotten to update the timer. Yep, it's a complicated thing, the DYK :-) I had indeed forgotten to notify the contributors (even thoàugh I appreciatre those notes myself), and I didn't clear Next Update. I did put the items I put on the front page also in the "recent additions" page, I believe. Anyway, I'll try to jeep these things in mind the next time I update them! Fram 18:28, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

DYK

On 1 October, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Colard Mansion, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

D_arkF_alls ^talk 06:13, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Coptic Medical Society

FYI: Reappears here. - CobaltBlueTony —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 13:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Gone now. Thanks! Fram 13:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Wildwood Christian School

Hey, what's going on here? You deleted the article, but didn't close the AFD! - Ta bu shi da yu 14:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Some lag in your browser / cache / whatever? I closed it at 14:39[1], and deleted at 14:40[2] (I sometimes delete first ,close second, but this time I definitely closed first). If I have forgotten something (some tag or whatever), please tell me where, as to me it looks like I did it correctly. Fram 14:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. Must be. However, could you please provide a deletion reason? There are three keeps, one by editor DGG with a reasonable comment. IMO you really need to justify why you removed the article, otherwise this will be taken to DRV and the process will get messy. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:49, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you used the "back" button instead of refreshing? Anyway, I have provided a reasoning. Fram 15:02, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I think what happened was that I edited the article after you deleted the article, yet before you added the note to it, and never noticed the afd end boilerplate, which is why it's a good idea to add {{closing}}. But thank you for adding a deletion comment to this AFD. - Ta bu shi da yu 15:42, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

image

• Hi, please delete this photo. Because the owner firm wants to start legal intervention. We gave information to them on tr.wikipedia. There is no problem. Thanks a lot. --20pxmaderibeyza^msj 09:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I am not the best aadmin to come to for image discussions (not my specialty at all), but from what I see, we have the uploader claiming he took the picture, and someone else claiming that he or she holds the copyright, without any info as to how and where (where did the uploader get it from? Magazine, website, ...?). Lacking that info, I don't see how we can act here (else every pd-self picture would have to be removed if someone claimed that he had the copyright instead, making it very easy for vandals to get rid of tons of pictures). Fram 09:21, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Flemish/Dutch

Just to avoid a misunderstanding concerning Flemish and Dutch people. Flemish people, when we choose to see them as an ethnic group, are not of all times. Most historicans agree that a distinct flemish identity only emerged at the end of the 19th century, after growing francophone oppression. I just wanted to make clear that this isn't a case of denial of Flemish identity or grootneerlandisme or anything. But a Fleming before, lets say, 1900 wasn't a fleming as we know it today, but rather an inhabitant of Flanders.Rex 09:41, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I use it in the meaning of location, like it is used most often. When you compare the lists of Dutch painters and Flemish painters on this Wikipedia, it is based on their location (birth or work), without much consideration of the actual situation at their time of birth (Burgundian, Austrian, Spanish, Dutch, French, ...). Many of those people would probably not have identified as either Dutch or Flemish, it is just a means of locating them in the current political, linguistic and sociological situation. Calling someone Dutch becasue he lived in the Netherlands / Low Countries / ... and spoke Dutch may be correct ethnically, but is incorrect in many other meanings, as it givces the impression that he had a direct link (place of birth, origin of parents, ...) with the current boudnaries of the Netherlands. Similarly, I will not call people from e.g. the current Zeeuws-Vlaanderen "Flemish" but always "Dutch". "Flemish" gives a good indication of the combination of language (Dutch) and location (the current Flanders), and that is all I want to indicate with it. I will e.g. not change someones language from Dutch to Flemish, as the general name of the language is Dutch for both the Netherlands and Flanders. I have nothing against the Dutch (I have worked on a number of Netherlands-related articles, including today, cleaning up the List of Dutch people), in case you were worried. Fram 10:07, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Well if correctly applied then the concept of an ethnic group is barely related to any geopolitical concepts (ie countries) so we now have the ethnicity and location in the article.Rex 10:51, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

But why is the ethnicity of any importance? Is there any "ethnicity" outside the language that connects van Beethoven to the Dutch? He lived in a place that was then and is now part of a different country, had no clear connection to the Netherlands, and it is highly doubtful that he would have self-identified as a Dutch person. So it is not how he would have identified, and it is not how anyone nowadays indetifies him as far as I have found (his name is Dutch, i.e. the langauge, but that's all), and it gives for most readers (who are generally not interested in ethnicity) a wrong or at least very confusing impression. Why would we apply the concept of an ethnic group at all? Jews generally self-identify as Jews, but people in Flanders in the eighteenth century rarely self-identified as Dutch or Flemish. I don't care about his ethnicity at all, and I think most readers don't.Fram 10:59, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

No, I might have confused you now. I'm not saying Beethoven would have selfindentified as (or was) Dutch, the only reason he was there was because his grandfather was, which makes him part Dutch, mixed ancestry.Rex 11:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

'Now' you do have me confused. We were talking about the grandfather all the time, not about the Beethoven. Grandfather Lodewijk was not Dutch except in the rarely used ethnic sense. Everywhere on Wikipedia, poeple who lived in what is currently known as Belgium are known as Belgians, and/or people who lived in the current Belgium and spoke Dutch or lived in the current Flanders are known as Flemish (just like Dutch is used for about everyone living in the current state of the Netherlands). To change this to a confusing (for most readers) concept is negative for the understanding of the article. Just imagine changing Rubens to "Dutch", and how people would react. Fram 11:26, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Changing Rubens to Dutch could be possible, when properly explained in the Dutch article. Beethovens father was indeed Ethnically Dutch, but you seem to confuse ethnic group with some other things. An ethnic group has little to do with a nation or state, it mainly concernes culture. Ethnic classification are much used in wikipedia because they avoid political concepts where they can be tricky. For example many empires have multiple ethnic groups, but to call everyone within for example the Austrian Empire 'Austrians' is incorrect.Rex 11:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

It's like this, and I'm not a right wing enthousiast in case you might think so, but in russian there are 2 terms for person living within russia. (I'll translate them into Dutch to make it easier) a "ruslander" (a person with a russian nationality) and a Rus (an ethnic russian) in Dutch we don't really have such a direct distinction a 'nederlander' can mean both, but the concepts are different.Rex 11:44, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the relevance of your second paragraph, but in your first you make IMO an error. Indicating people who lived in what is now Flanders as "Dutch" is done rarely in general and almost never in Wikipedia. A simple indicator: "Dutch painter Rubens" gets 8 Google hits[3], none of them in Google Scholar[4] "Flemish painter Rubens" gets 289 Google hits[5], 9 of them in Google Scholar[6]. The first of those indicates that even contemporaries called Rubens (from Antwerp, not East or West Flanders) a Fleming. Similar searches can be done for e.g. Vesalius, Willaert, ... I know that one result versus none has little statistical value, but it quite typical that I can find a Google scholar result for Beethoven plus flemish grandfather[7], but none for Beethoven plus Dutch grandfather[8]. There are, finally, more results for Dutch and Beethoven[9] than for Flemish and Beethoven[10], but it is clear from looking at these that the Dutch ones have rarely anything to do with his ancestry, and the first few Flemish ones are about his ancestry, clearly labeling him as Flemish. To me it is quite clear that, internationally and scientifically speaking, if someone discusses an artist or scientist living and working in what currently is Flanders, he describes him as Flemish, and not as Dutch, no matter what is his ethnicity or what wsa the historical situation. I haven't seen a good argument yet to change this habit of both Wikipedia and the international scientific community. Fram 12:13, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Ethnicity is not bound to place of birth. Being born in the Netherlands doesnt make you an ethnic Dutchman perse, do you understand that?Rex 12:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but I don't give a thing about ethnicity, I see it as highly irrelevant in these article. No one recognizes people living and working in Flanders in the 14th, 15th, 16th, ... centuries as Dutch (except those born in the current Netherlands in some cases). Wikipedia lists them as Flemish. English language scientific publications list them as Flemish. You seem to be about the only one wanting to list them as Dutch, and you support that by pointing to their ethnicity. But you have failed to explain why we should suddenly characterize these people by their ethnicity, when it hasn't been done before, and you eqsually fail to explain what is wrong with calling them Flemish, when that has been done all the time on Wikipedia and by scientific magazines. When you read about e.g. "a seventeenth century Flemish composer", you get immediately the idea that he lilved in what is currently Falnders and probably spoke Dutch. When you read about a "seventeenth century Dutch composer", you get the idea that he lived in the current Netherlands. To now change that, based on some (in these circumstances) rarley used concept of ethnicity, is utterly confusing and gives no benefits. Fram 12:53, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

In English, especially Americans, tend to value ethnicity a lot indeed, for example when they read a Dutch American, they do not think about an American born in the Netherlands (purely geographical) but generally read an American, born in the US (geographical) and of Dutch herritage (ethnical). In many cases, especially historically, as 'nationality' was not a common thing. Also, I'd really like to stress that ethnicity isn't a rarely used concept. It's used a lot. Even in Belgium.Rex 14:37, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

But it's not used a lot in combination with these figures, or else the article on Dutch (ethnic group) is incorrect. These people (people who lived and worked in current Flanders before 1830) are very rarely referred to as "Dutch", and almost always as "Flemish". We follow the most common usage, we don't proscribe it. Perhaps they are Dutch, ethnically, and perhaps they aren't, and perhaps they are Flemish, and Dutch, and Brabantian, and Burgundian, and Caucasian, all at once. I don't care. What I do care about is that in WIkipedia and in scientific journals (in English!), these people (including Lodewijk van Beethoven, but also Rubens e.a.) are in general referred to as Flemish. You have given not a single argument why we shouldn't follow this any longer. Fram 14:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Both are possible, but Flemings in an ethnic sence before 1900 or so is impossible, in a regional sence sure, it's possible just like Brabantian or Hollandic etc are possible. But a 'Fleming' from 1830 was still ethnic Dutch. (note that I, and neither does literature, sees Flemish as a break of from the Dutch, Dutch is just the most used name for this older definition on which both the modern Dutch and Flemish are based, they might as well be called Flemish.)Rex 14:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, everyone calls them Flemish. If that is "ethnically" impossible, then you may understand why I don't really care what they are called ethnically, as that does not correspond with what is generally in use. Do you dispute that they (Lodewijk van Beethoven, Rubens, ...) are generally (Wikipedia, scientific literature in English, ...) called "Flemish"? Fram 15:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't dispute that either Rubens or Lodewijk lived and came from Flanders, and that they were inhabitants of the modern region of Flanders. I do dispute, as does literature, that they belonged to 'a Flemish people'.Rex 16:19, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

As you have not answered the question, I'll repeat it: do you dispute that these persons are generally called "Flemish"? Fram 19:16, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I did answer your question, you don't seem to understand that Flemish can be interpreted in 2 ways here.Rex 17:35, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, like I answered on the Lodewijk van Beethoven page, I hadn't grasped that your (main) problem was with the link to "Flemish people", and not with the use of Flemish per se. Would it be acceptable to you if we changed the link from "Flemish people" to "Flanders", so that it is clearer that we are calling them Flemish because of the location, and not ethnically? 19:36, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Of course, Flemish in the locational sense are as old as the word Flanders itself. Fleminsh people (ethnic sense) are not. I'm glad we're finally getting somewhere because I hopefully think that you can now see, my objection to his 'flemish ancestry', because though I completely agree his family lived in a region now known as Flanders, he does not descend from 'flemish people'.Rex 15:23, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

A more straightforward way to classify people could be by civilization, a term that includes both location and era (but not ethnics). If you consider the 'Dutch civilization', then the Flemish as well as e.g. the Boers are IMHO part of it. Regards, Guido den Broeder 17:35, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Dynamic reliability block diagrams DRBD Deletion

Dear Fram, I am the author of the page you deleted today, 9th October. It summurizes a scientifc research I made, that is also confirmed by many papers published in international scientific conferences and journal. I think could be interesting for someone working on dynamic reliability to know DRBD. So I ask you if it is possible to rebuild a new dynamic reliability block diagrams page. If you want I can rewrite it. Thanks and regards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.167.110.201 (talk) 14:43, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

As this page was deleted after a deletion discussion (WP:AfD), discussion of the deletion or the recreation of it should happen at deletion review. Fram 14:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Deleted Gangsta Boo Albums

Please undelete these three articles. As albums by a notable artist they are deserving of individual articles. At the very worst the information should've been incorporated into the main article, not deleted outright. Thankyou. Exxolon 17:04, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

• An editor has asked for a deletion review of Enquiring Minds. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Exxolon 23:33, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Tour De Laramie deletion

I disagree with your statement that the article had no significance as hundreds if not over a thousand people participate every year, and so far as I know events, such as the Boston Marathon, qualify to be in wikipedia. Ultimately the worst that should have happened to the article was it being merged with that of Laramie, Wyoming. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Helgers7 (talk • contribs) 18:57, 13 October 2007 (UTC) Events don't qualify to be included in Wikipedia. Notable events do, those that receive significant media attention and coverage, like the Boston Marathon and unlike the Tour de Laramie. When I search independent info on the Tour de Laramie, all I find is blogs, mySpace pages, and other similar pages which don't count as reliable sources. As could be expected for a pub tour, of course... You have the right to dispute this deletion at deletion review, but I doubt very much that you will get another response there. Fram 07:48, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

DRV Notice

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Enquiring Minds. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. -- Jreferee t/c 19:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Deleting

Hi, Fram. I was amazed by your unilateral deletion of Ya - rep without discussion as the prodding template assumes deletion request to be contested. --Brand спойт 16:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

It was tagged for speedy deletion, and I didn't see a reason not to, as it had no claim whatsoever to notability, and the 80 Google hits[11] seem to confirm that image. Please check out WP:MUSIC and WP:NOTE: if you then still believe that we should have an article on Ya - rep, please provide some link as evidence of notability. Fram 07:10, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

ME/CVS Vereniging

Please be so kind and restore the article ME/CVS Vereniging which you deleted unilaterally without warning or announcement. Guido den Broeder 23:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Please be so kind to show me why the Vereniging would be notable according to Wikipedia guidelines, as evidenced by reliable sources. Existence, and being a good cause, are not sufficient reason to have an encyclopedia article. The 188 Google hits and lack of any Google News hits do not indicate that this is a notable group,[12], but of course Google searching is not perfect. You can also dispute this deletion at deletion review. 07:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. The ME/CVS Vereniging is the only national ME/CFS patient association in The Netherlands. Coverage has occurred in a.o. regional and national newspaper articles, and publications are mentioned on major websites such as of the Dutch council for the chronic ill and the handicapped. The association is presently involved in the production of the official Dutch guideline on CFS. It is formally recognized by the Dutch government as a representative of ME/CFS patients. Information on the association is present in all Dutch libraries. Guido den Broeder 10:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll undelete the article to give you a chance to add sources and so on. I'm not convinced that the things you mention here (except possibly for the national newspaper article) make it any more notable (being the only one and formally recognized are not important for notability, although they may, if sourced, of course be added to the article). I would prefer that the section about the previous association, and the reasons the new one was created, is either reliably sourced or removed, as it is a rather negative claim to make. I would also greatly prefer if someon else made the article, due to the obvious conflict of interest you have. However, COI is not a reason for deletion. I'll let the article stand for a while before deciding if I bring it to AfD. Other admins are obvisouly still free to delete it or to nominate it for deletion, if they feel the need. 11:30, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Fram, also for the advice. Guido den Broeder 11:56, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

My fault

I'm so sorry -- I wasn't looking carefully enough. I thought it was the Timely Comics category page itself, not the talk page. Thanks for pointing it out and I appreciate your being so nice about it! --Tenebrae 14:44, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

No problem! Fram 14:47, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Dwarves (Warcraft)

Hi, just a question about your closing verdict for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dwarves (Warcraft), if you've got time. If, as you say, the articles are non-notable and entirely in-universe, I don't really understand how merging them will solve either problem, as the resultant article will still be non-notable and in-universe, won't it? Cheers, Miremare 17:15, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but the fans are happy because they still have some of the info, and the encyclopedists are happy because we have only one article instead of 11 or so. At least, that's what I hope, perhaps instead of keeping both sides happy I will have two unhappy sides now, but it was worth a try. 18:47, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Farrer Football League

Hi, you deleted this article as an expired PROD back in July. Would it be possible to restore the article? If you are not comfortable with restoration then I would be happy to keep it in my userspace until it looked ready for article space again. I feel the article at least deserves to go to AfD. Thanks, Mattinbgn\^talk 05:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I've recreated it as User:Mattinbgn/Sandbox/Farrer Football League. You are free to recreate it as an article as well, although obviously I can't guarantee that I or any other editor won't AfD it then. In its current state, it doesn't seem to meet WP:NOTE. Fram 06:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I understand there are no guarantees. With sourcing, notability shouldn't be a problem -- Mattinbgn\^talk 07:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Collapse of the World Trade Center

Fram, I'm sorry, I don't understand exactly what the issue is.

If you continue to remove my factual, referenced, additions,

I will be forced to report you to Wikipedia for not being unbiased.

I WILL concede to you, the "freefall" 'conclusion, and simply let the facts speak for themselves.

Again, if you continue to remove factual, referenced, information, I WILL report you.

Which info have I removed? I think you confuse my edits with those of User:Peterhoneyman. Fram 14:21, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Request for mediation not accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Collapse of the World Trade Center. For the Mediation Committee, Daniel 00:18, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Thanks

For the talkpage revert... I'm mostly concerned about this "special internet that evades blocks"... My God... he's discovered dial-up!--Isotope23 ^talk 16:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

-)) A special internet for vandals only, that would be agood thing though... Fram 16:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: Linking to your own pages

I am going to continue to add these links when they are removed. The site contains information that, in some cases, is unavailable elsewhere; especially on Wikipedia. As such, it should be linked (at the very least) from external links sections. If somebody else wants to add them, great, but mentioning it in a talk page and sitting around waiting for somebody to do it is an unnecessary waste of time. Floppie 17:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Willfully ignoring policy isn't very smart. You link to your own site (violating WP:EL, which is a wiki with a very limited number of editors (violating WP:EL again). If you disagree with that policy, take it up on Wikipedia talk:External links. Until then, your links are unacceptable, and continuing to add them is disrupting wikipedia and can lead to a block. Fram 17:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I am not attempting to use Wikipedia as a source of advertising or promotion; furthermore, I could care less about search engine rank or traffic to my site. The MediaWiki software does a fine job of optimizing for search engines without having to get inward links, and I receive more than enough traffic to pay for the bandwidth already. By adding these links I am simply trying to point users to another, more plentiful, source of information.

The wiki has a limited number of editors because I haven't gone out looking for editors; the site is relatively new. However, regardless, the pages (such as expansion pages) provide far more information than Wikipedia does on the same subject. Floppie 18:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Heh!

And playing right down the street from me, two miles away or so ;) It's not me. I can hit a ball, kind of, but ... I wish I had that level of ability! Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 09:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

User talk:70.116.31.203

Well what I said was tag things for notability of AfD them - speedying so many was a cheap way to clear the boards.

Technically I've cleared out Category:Comic book titles using notability tags and then PRODing them [13] and there hasn't been a proliferation of entries. Of course, that approach might be too slow for web comics but that is why my involvement is only in passing.

Ultimately was trying to make a broader point - each has to be judged on its merits and there are a range of actions that can be taken - some of the articles tagged should be put up for deletion asap. Some should be tagged up and others left alone (there are some clearly notable entries tagged). (Emperor 16:25, 31 October 2007 (UTC))

People are always going to read what they want into things and as he was already wikilawyering and misinterpreting rules I thought it wise to pitch a more cautious approach (one which I almost always use and there is nothing wrong with it) - another editor following up has thrown in similar ideas. I'd rather we erred on the side of a slower cautious approach building consensus for an action rather than blitz deleting large numbers of entries. Granted it might not be ideal in all circumstances but no where have I said that is the only way to do it - my emphasis was on dealing with each on a case-by-case basis and using the appropriate action. (Emperor 22:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC))