User talk:HighInBC/Archive 12

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

List of Geordies

I'm thinking of taking your recent close to DRV. The grounds might include:

• early closure - it doesn't seem to have had a full five days and discussion was still active
• the presence of sockpuppets in the debate who were not clearly identified
• the fact that there wasn't a consensus - opinions were divided
• the article was fully protected during the discussion and so it was not possible to improve it (I tried).

You may have considered these points so your comments would be welcome. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

• (edit conf, agreed) Per your close, please give me just one example given in the Afd where reliable sources disagree on the definition, as applied to application to notable persons, which is the subject of the list, rather than geographic area, which as has been documented is not the definition of a geordie as reflected in reliable sources. I also note the complete lack of ackowledgement of suck puppetry in the vote, note Special:Contributions/81.132.214.251 for an example of the complete lengths of desperation of just one person you have finally satisified with this closure. MickMacNee (talk) 17:12, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the early closure, I don't think 4 days and 18 hours is that much of a difference than 5 days. We are not a bureaucracy, and I think that the discussion was not so much ongoing, but going in circles.

I took into account sock puppetry, other than the one already mentioned on the talk page and the ones crossed out there is only one other new account that was on the delete side.

We don't need complete agreement for consensus, the vast majority of people in the discussion preferred the deletion of the article for policy based reasons.

You are welcome to take it to DRV, but we decide these things based on consensus. I think it is very clear what the consensus was. _(1 == 2)^Until 18:06, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it was very clear the decision of this magnitude, on such a long standing, sourced and verifiable content, cannot be made on the votes made in this Afd alone, given the entire history of sock disruption of the articles, which I laid out very clearly and are precise reasons why the Afd consenus can hardly be considered clear cut, and you did not address once. In fact you did not adress any of the keep opinions at all. Sock votes in the Afd alone are not the issue, I gave you an example right above of the relentlessness of this sock, and still no comment. I have asked you for a clarification of your specific closure comment, which is supposed to reflect the argument, and you have given none, not a single one. MickMacNee (talk) 18:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

It is not my job to address opinions. It is my job to judge consensus. If you think there was not a consensus to delete take it to DRV. _(1 == 2)^Until 18:25, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

It will be pointless if no one is going to look into the issue beyond the surface. How can you possibly not answer any of the points made above? Many of these Afd voters had nothing to do with the well sourced and well established article, and expressed just personal opinion at an Afd, wrongly reflected by yourself, and like I said, doing the work of a massively determined sock. I seriously doubt you have given this issue the proper weight at all, especially as I suspect you are American, and probably take the ludicrous view that Geordie is used in the same way as Hillbilly. This is not realy an innaccuracy that can be addressed at DRV, as you well know. MickMacNee (talk) 18:35, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Please don't make assumptions about my nationality, it is very rude. _(1 == 2)^Until 20:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

As rude as endorsing an opinion that Geordie means the same as Hillbilly? As rude as allowing a sockpuppet from Sunderland's views remain on an Afd? As rude as calling natioinal press reporters as lazy and don't know their job compared to a WP admin? Get some perspective please. MickMacNee (talk) 20:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I will ask you again to be polite. I have done none of the things you just said, not one of them. So you keep some perspective. If you think I am wrong go to DRV. You need to accept that when everyone disagrees with you that we aren't going to do what you say, even if you really think you are right. _(1 == 2)^Until 20:39, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks to User:Until(1 == 2) for his considered response. I am still not convinced that the close was right but will sleep on it. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Your welcome, thanks for bringing your concerns to me first. _(1 == 2)^Until 20:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The issue for me is 1=2 has basically not replied to a request to clarify his closing statement, i.e. provide a diff of single specific vote made in the manner of his closing opinon, supported by fact. I don't see one, hence he has closed on personal opinion votes or votes that go against DR or RS and hence invalid. In fact twice in the Afd I proved one example given by the nom as being out and out wrong again not commented on. And treating the sock issue as minor is just amazing, let alone failure to answer any other question, and closing it clearly because he was watching it, in the middle of a conversation. MickMacNee (talk) 18:59, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Many of the arguments for deletion made reference to the fact that the inclusion criteria are not reasonably defined. _(1 == 2)^Until 20:33, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I am currently drafting a summary of the voting as I see it, in absence of one from you. MickMacNee (talk) 20:39, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Let me know when you are done, I will look at it. _(1 == 2)^Until 20:40, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

My summary of the Afd votes:
(It should be noted, especially in the case here where 3 reasons were given in the nomination, that per nom votes are hardly helpful. A couple even acknowledge their laziness.)
6 per nom delete votes: Docg, ChrisO, Jack Merridew, Masterpiece2000, Jauerback, rudget
3 votes on the basis it is disputed: RyanGerbil, Hobbeslover, Tan39
5 invalid delete votes:

Andrenatas, a massively banned sock not struck out

Seahamlass - offers her own POV of a Geordie, not supported by the article

Dhartung - Geordies are Hillbillies - against WP:otherstuffexists, and a complete POV

Tan39, by virtue of per Dhartung vote

4 delete votes based on inability to define Geordie: SheffieldSteel, Katesshortforbob, Darkson, Jayron32

6 keep votes: because Geordie is variously definable using notable reliable sources: Myself, Deacon of Pndapetzim, Klausness; and on the basis content disputes are not for Afd (i.e. invalid nomination): Colonal Warden, Casliber, Firefly322

Based on your sentence for closure, and my view that the disruption opinion is invalid, due to a 120 sock account being involved in this article for a long time, and the talk page histories and Afd not being properly censored as such, I see the valid consensus as 10 votes to 6 regarding delete because Geordie is undefined/undefinable.

It is 10 to 7 if you take into account the third opinion registered right before the nomination. Now, addressing this reason, the article Geordie is very well sourced, the multiple definitions are well sourced, and as all the keep votes acknowledge, dealing with this kind of dispute is for the talk page, not Afd, as clarification is easily done on the article. This is exaclty how it should be per WP:dispute and WP:consensus, and why WP:RS exists.

It should also be said, the only example of an apparent conflict given by the nom, supported by sources as the closing argument asserts, is Paul Collingwood, which I have shown with reliable sources in the Afd is not true, again an example of an argument easily solved outside Afd, and not justification for deletion of every single entry on the list. These arguments rely themselves on WP:SYN, whereby a direct source is being disputed by an indirect one, or generalisation. Not one direct conflict of like for like sources has been produced. Again, for borderline cases, it is for the talk page not Afd.

The Paul Collingwood issue combined with 6 'per nom' lazy votes also makes this closure look shaky, especially as the nom also calls the national press 'lazy' and makes some other very vague claims in his original nomination.

It is bordering on WP:I don't like it if these facts are not addressed in the closing asessment. I see this as a no consensus vote, easily fixed by editing not deletion. MickMacNee (talk) 21:10, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

You are welcome to present all that at the DRV. _(1 == 2)^Until 21:16, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I am waiting for Col Wardens opinion, and thought you might have at least liked to comment on it before possibly having your judgement questioned at DRV. MickMacNee (talk) 21:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I disagree. I think it would take a real stretch of the imagination, and a strong desire for a certain outcome to see this as a no consensus. Don't worry about me and DRV, I am fine with it. I am challenged here and there, but I am proud to say I have yet to be overturned. _(1 == 2)^Until 21:21, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello will you tell MickMacNee to leave me alone? He is harassing me, stalking me, and accusing me of being a sock without evidence, resulting in this [1]. 81.132.214.251 (talk) 21:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

As I am involved in a content dispute with Mick, it would be inappropriate for me the investigate this, please find someone uninvolved. Thanks. _(1 == 2)^Until 21:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

FYI, this is another (currently suspected) sock of the 120 sock person I have been talking about for ages now. MickMacNee (talk) 21:28, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, and has been blocked as such. _(1 == 2)^Until 21:57, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

You act as if it is neither here nor there that is gets deleted or not. Which is pretty how most of the delete votes sounded too, with not a single policy quoted, nor any concrete example supporting your closure opinion, in fact the reverse, with a provided example actually proved wrong. I ask you again, show me the best factually supported vote that supports your closure, that does not support the view that telegraph writers know less than wp editors, does not assert a personal opinion over factual content, does not compare non-comparable sources, does not call for the deletion of 153 sourced list entries because 1? 2? 3? are mentioned as not worthy of inclusion and finally does not call for deletion in a reverse invocation of WP:otherstuff. You are aware you have also taken into account some deletes that were actually default rewrite and or merge? What about those opinions? Whatever happened to 'Afd is not content/dispute resolutiuon', or 'deletion requires a higher standard than keeping'? Someone even called it unmaintainable. Since 2005? Without the sock? Hardly. MickMacNee (talk) 02:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I would not use the term "neither her nor there", I would use something like "business as usual". We are building a document, that involves removing stuff we don't think belongs. We do this all day every day. Lots of things get deleted. I know that you are very attached to this article, but that does not mean Wikipedia is going to publish it. The text is licensed to GFDL, so if you like I can send you a copy via Wikipedia's built in e-mail function of the deleted text and you can put it on your own website.

I really don't have much more to say on the matter. Either take it to DRV, or let it go. If I am wrong by the standards of the community then they will overturn my decision and I will personally see to it that it is undeleted, otherwise the deletion stands. _(1 == 2)^Until 02:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

As I said, I'm waiting for the col. Publication is a good point, I would absolutely not need to publish this anywhere else, the 153 sources should demonstrate that. What I do know is that the way that this Afd has gone, in a 5 day debate and deletion of an entire sourced list (straight after a third opinon no less), is absolutely not a comparable business as usual event such as deleting advert pages or other crap, when contrasted to the evolution of this obviously stable and highly notable information since 2002 with the contributions and review without calling for Afd by what must be tens of thousands of people. If I could remember where the tool was, I would be interested to know how many page views Geordie has actually had, for 10-15 people to remove it, against 6-7, and not a single policy quoted. Not even a suggestion of a re-list in light of extreme sock pushing. There should definitely be a threshold level of both total and majority opinion for this sort of decision. MickMacNee (talk) 02:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Good god man! All of your concerns are exactly why we have DRV, if you want to wait for col do so, but don't argue the issues here that should be argued in DRV in the meantime. _(1 == 2)^Until 02:54, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I have this idealistic notion you might see what you have done and change your mind, or reply here to my comments/questions convincing me why I am totally wrong and manage to persuade me not to dispute it formally. And I want to see what Col makes of my verbosity first, as he is clearly a man that can condense an argument to brief points. MickMacNee (talk) 03:07, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

And if not, that was my last words on it, honest. MickMacNee (talk) 03:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

It is just that I think a DRV will explain it to you much better than I can. _(1 == 2)^Until 05:34, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

please restore United Cerebral Palsy

It is a notable organization. See the newspaper article at http://www.mydesert.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080318/NEWS01/803180324/1006/news01 and other articles about it at http://news.google.com/news?q=%22United+Cerebral+Palsy%22 -- TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 22:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

It was not deleted due to lack of notability, but due to a combination of it reading like an advert, and the original author opting for its deletion rather than go through AfD. You are welcome to recreate the article using reliable sources, but what is deleted is very bias in favor of the organization and much of it constitutes copyright violations. It is best to start fresh. _(1 == 2)^Until 22:03, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

cannabis censorship, or do you say prohibition

Dear Un,

Since you appeared to be applauding the actions of Jaysweet deleting most of the Cannabis smoking article, I hope you will note that to some it may appear like selective Censorship, especially since he again placed lengthy directions on how to mix tobacco into the cannabis at the top, and removed any alternative smoking methods except for hot burning overdose. Repeating what I said today on the talk page, Google directs children around the world to this article when they want to find out about how to smoke cannabis, and the title of the article clearly indicates that they may expect to find trust-worthy how-to advice in it, however you interpret his statement about what an encyclopedia is.

From here on if you are interested you can find further discussion on User talk:Jaysweet, and for further "backgo"round, try User talk:tokerdesigner.Tokerdesigner (talk) 23:33, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

We are bringing the article into line with our policies, you have seen the links but clearly have not followed them. We base things on verifiablity, we reject original research. You can talk about this on the article talk page instead of here as it is the more appropriate place. _(1 == 2)^Until 23:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Please also note that the cleanup of the article is a work in progress. I have re-ordered it some to avoid this undue weight towards mixing with tobacco. I do suspect your actual goal is to get vaporisation at the top, but that would also be undue weight. _(1 == 2)^Until 23:59, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I have also added the information that smoking cannabis with tobacco can lead to tobacco dependence. I supported this claim with a reference to a document that the department of health in Australia published on the subject. That is how we confirm claims. _(1 == 2)^Until 00:09, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Sad Git

Hi. Per this user's talk page, have you noticed that:

1. This user had no idea what they have done wrong, and
2. They could make absolutekly nothing of your message?

It might be less bitey to take the extra time to engage potential editors in dialog rather than whipping out the banhammer.

152.91.9.144 (talk) 05:41, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

If the Sad Git does not know that calling that girls parents murders was out of line, then I don't think I will be able to teach him. Nor do I wish to, we don't want him editing here. _(1 == 2)^Until 05:46, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.