User talk:Mandsford

Per suggestion, I've archived what had been here until recently. A lot of prior material can be found at the imaginatively titled article User talk:Mandsford/Archive.

Even more can be found at [1]. Last year, I had cut out all but the highlights and lowlights of the first two years of the talk page, but didn't archive them.

"Unambiguous copyright infringement: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Giordano memorization system" - What makes you automatically assume that any copyrights were violated? The PDF version of the book that you linked to (http://www.realmemoryimprovement.com/GMS_Manual_RMI.pdf) is actually copyrighted by Vladimir Kozarenko and Ruslans Mescerjakovs, Reg # TXu1-322-757 and I have a written permission from Ruslans to use it. Can you please clear this up as I'd very much like to rewrite the article so that it is encyclopedic so speedy deleting it based on a wrong assumption doesn't help. PaulKulla (talk) 15:57, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per your comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timberwood Middle School in response to what I wrote, I have created the following in my user space:

User:TrackerTV/HumbleISD

This should resolve this whole AfD if done properly. Also, I plan to fix the remaining Humble ISD articles (it was found that all the links had been broken) and classify the elementary schools by feeder. What do you think? Raymie Humbert (t • c) 17:36, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But are you interested in a RFA nomination, your AFD insight is my opinion among the best and you sorely needed with the tools. Secret ^account 20:36, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RFA is the link, requests for adminship Secret ^account 13:55, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Mandsford Secret ^account 14:48, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You need to accept the nomination before it goes live, and explain question number 1 more clearly you don't need the tools to warn users of incivility. Secret ^account 15:21, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is the comments you said means a withdraw? You are still passing the RFA just an heads up. Secret ^account 03:42, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your open-mindedness at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of urban areas in the Nordic countries. Now, if only the Helsinki Treaty of 1962 had produced a uniform definition of "urban area" across all those countries For what it's worth, the idea of "Nordic countries" is far better defined than the endless disputes one would get about "Central Europe" for instance... TheGrappler (talk) 13:20, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, 2B (magazine), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2B (magazine) (2nd nomination). Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Lionel (talk) 00:10, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please "opt-in" to allow X!'s edit counter to produce detailed data for the RfA toolbox in your RfA? This can be done by creating a page User:Mandsford/EditCounterOptIn.js with any content (including blank). While such opt-in is not required, it has sort of become customary for RfA candidates in recent months. On a side note, may I suggest that you archive at least a part of your talk page? Thanks, Nsk92 (talk) 11:31, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please note someone has mentioned at BN (Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard#RfA withdraw?) that it looks like you are withdrawing your RfA? You are certainly free to do so, but keep in mind that nearly every RfA attracts opposes; and sometimes a candidate's answer to a particular question might cause one person to support while another oppose - for the very same statement! The individual at BN indicated they thought you should stick it out - even though they were opposing you. Please let me know if you would still like to withdraw, and I can do the paperwork to shut it down. –xeno^talk 13:01, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Try to do some WP:CSD work, and prove the opposers wrong. Secret ^account 13:14, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate it, but today and tomorrow are both full days for me; on the one hand, not answering a question right away gives the appearance that I'm dodging that question, and on the other hand, trying to come up with thoughtful answers takes up time that I should be spending on my own paperwork. As it is, my wife thinks that I'm too obsessed with Wikipedia. If I need to click on something to make things official, please let me know. Mandsford 13:26, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most users realize that real life trumps Wikipedia so a delay in answering the questions - especially days into the RFA - won't necessarily be a deal breaker. On the other hand - you should probably listen to your wife unless you want to be in the doghouse! =0 To "officially" withdraw, you should strike the statement "I accept." and append I withdraw. ~~~~ to that line. –xeno^talk 13:30, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't withdraw, you are still passing. Secret ^account 14:46, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the questions are optional, not mandatory, that needs to be kept in mind. -- Avi (talk) 15:31, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• That makes a difference for me. Based on everyone's comments, I'll stay in, give honest answers, and let this go on to August 31. Mandsford 17:16, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Cool. Thank you for your offer to serve as an administrator. =) Best of luck, –xeno^talk 17:19, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Good on you. Re my support (and thanks for the lol, I have a rather.. warped.. sense of humour) I see you as somebody who tells it like it is. Wikipedia's admins (and indeed, users) should be people willing to say what they think, even when it's not what the other guy wants to hear. In our encounters we've sometimes agreed, sometimes disagreed, but either way you've a) made your opinion known and b) had a great rationale for it, even in those cases where I vehemently oppose you. Those are things I can respect, and I truly wish we had more users like you. Regards, Ironholds (talk) 17:21, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Mands, I certainly do not think you should feel obliged to answer any 'optional' questions if you don't feel like it. Research has shown that many of those 'optional' questions are posed by children, people wanting quick answers to their own editing problems, general time wasters, and most disturbingly, by admins who never had to answer any any additional questions themselves and might not realise the extra pressure this puts on people, and is one of the strongest deterrents against people wanting to run for office. If I were running the gauntlet (and I might be one day), I will certainly not spend three hours answering anything up to 12 questions compiled into one 'optional' question. I would blatantly ignore it. Sorry that I could not see my way clear to supporting you this time, but do bear in mind that 'neutral' is neutral, not 'weak oppose'. I think you're on a winning streak anyway.--Kudpung (talk) 11:11, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

hey man i see your an admin and i feell ive been unfairly treated by a user named Bbb23 i try hard on my edits and he goes through and keeps reverting stuff. i tried hard to find a source on muslims in the us army in ww2, and put in caps on my summary hat i wanted to find the academic paper as the citation i used only mentioned that it got its figures from the paper, he reverted my edit and has been repeatedly rude, what do i do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Montbur (talk • contribs) 17:27, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations on your successful RFA! Your bits have been twiddled. I strongly encourage and recommend that you read and become very familiar with Wikipedia:Administrators, the tools page, the blocking and banning policies, and the protection policy. Refer to the policies often, especially if you have questions. Please also don't hesitate to ask questions if you have them. This is especially important for areas where you may not be completely familiar with them or completely sure of how you should proceed. Some editors who participated in your RfA have indicated a willingness to help you out should you have questions, and I strongly encourage you to take them up on those offers. There are plenty of people around, including myself, who are very willing to help you out should you need it. Again, congratulations! ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 18:35, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations! Now get to work! :) ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 18:37, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats. Connormah (talk) 19:47, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats as well, if you ever need training let me know. Secret ^account 19:54, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations and good luck! Tyrol5 [Talk] 20:04, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats, dude! Ironholds (talk) 23:16, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks, everyone. I'll probably be asking a lot of questions, since I don't think I know it all yet. And the moment I start acting as if I do know it all, please remind me that I don't. Mandsford 00:30, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations Mandsford! I'm sure you'll make a good admin. In unrelated news, did you ever send that dollar? Olaf Davis (talk) 13:50, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I couldn't winkle out much about you from the RfA page or your "no frills" user page. Are you from the US? Anything more we can add? For example, any admin areas apart from deletions? Any other content areas?Link. Tony (talk) 07:55, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How's that, now? PS have you browsed through Commons for a pic or two you could put on your main page? Would be easy, especially given your penchant for history / sports history. Tony (talk) 01:07, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mandsford. First of all: congratulations on your successful RfA! Now to the business at hand. A few hours ago you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/0th grade with the result "Redirect to Danish pre-school education". In an apparent edit conflict, QwerpQwertus closed it as "redirect to Kindergarten", but recanted when discovering that you had already closed it. AfD history For the article itself, the situation was the reverse. QwerpQwertus redirected it to Kindergarten, you redirected to Danish pre-school education and then reverted yourself. article history The end result is that the AfD says one thing and the actual redirect something else. Even though I !voted for the "Danish solution", I find both redirects perfectly acceptable, but it's probably best if there is agreement between AfD and implementation. I'm leaving a talkback on QwerpQwertus' talk page. Cheers, Favonian (talk) 08:48, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• It should actually go to Preschool education because kindergarten is a German word and this is the English wikipedia. Note that South Africa and Sweden also have grade 0.

In such cases, where the content is complex and open to further development and discussion, I suggest that Mandsford simply state that the article should not be deleted and that the target of any merger or redirection be determined by the editors working upon the topic(s). The primary purpose of AFD is to decide whether to press the delete button and, once that is decided, the rest is a matter of ordinary editing. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:24, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's the English Wikipedia sure enough, but not the British. The originally German word Kindergarten has become integrated in American English as well as other varieties of the language. Favonian (talk) 12:40, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It redirects to Kindergarten for the time being. There have been several editors who have pointed out that the concept isn't unique to Denmark; In addition to the references above to Sweden and South Africa, Phil Bridger referred to the term "Zerówka" in Poland; the history of what the article had said ("0th grade (danish: nulte klasse) is the modern Danish name for the concept known as kindergarden (danish: børnehaveklasse)." is preserved by the redirect [2]. While the decision could be appealed, it would be my hope that someone who wishes to elaborate on the concept would undo the redirect and write about it. Mandsford 15:56, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. My 2 cents: I originally AFD'd this article because the concept of a "0th" anything seemed absurd (and it was a stub). BUT, upon looking closer at it, it seems the term is more of a literal translation common in other countries/cultures who have a word or phrase to describe the earliest period of education as being "no grade" or "before grade." So, it seems to me to be more of a translation issue, rather than a real concept. I suggest redirecting to Preschool education since it is a more general and applies to all forms of this type of education, regardless of the language used. Thanks! The Eskimo (talk) 19:49, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had actually meant to close it as a redirect to the Danish article too since that was the consensus(too late now), but I copy-pasted the article title from the first vote, wrongly assuming that it suggested the same redirect everyone else wanted. Actually though, it seems to be most predominately used as a word for Kindergarten in Danish, so perhaps that'd be best since it's the most used way? Or maybe a disambig to Kindergarten, Preschool, Danish Education#section, ect.? Also, if we don't decide anything here, we should probably fix it by redirecting to the Danish article per the AFD consensus. ~ QwerpQwertus Talk ツ 23:33, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh am sam 64.138.231.250 (talk) 18:28, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You probably have way more important things to think about, but when you cloae an AfD (as here), please could you note the result in the Edit Summary, I like to keep an interest but I also like the admins to do all the work, to reduce my efforts ;-) Thanks in advance (or boo hiss if you shoot down my request!) Bigger digger (talk) 22:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, you're right on that one. I'll make sure to do that on future edits. Mandsford 23:51, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please userfy the pages you deleted called Ark (Transformers) and Nemesis (Transformers) to my talk page so I can work on improving them? Thanks! Mathewignash (talk)

Rudi Daniel

Found on a random article search. BLP-prod several days overdue for a deletion. Raymie (t • c) 02:18, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just letting you know that you forgot the {{oldafd}} tag for Community management talk page after closing it. I've done it for you ;) —CodeHydro 12:17, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A general discussion at WP:AN#AfD's generally closed too soon also involves some of your edits. You are invited to give your view on this as well. Fram (talk) 06:44, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I've undone your deletion of Ark (Transformers) and redirected it to List of Transformers spacecraft instead; there was a decent amount of history on the page; the target article could perhaps be expanded further by merging the content, rather than just out-and-out deleting it. There are 100+ articles that link to it, too, so this way we're avoiding a bunch of redlinks that are needlessly broken otherwise. EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:35, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When you close AfDs as "keep", "no consensus", or "merge", please place {{oldafdfull | date = dateOfNomination | result = result | page = articleName }} on the talk page for documentation purposes. The AfD result template can always be found after the AfD tag on the article, as in List of notable plot twists. Cunard (talk) 07:00, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lori Douglas, you removed the discussion from the AfD log after you closed it. AfDs should not be removed from the log after they are closed. An exception is when an AfD is relisted, where the admin or user will comment out the AfD as Spartaz did here. Cunard (talk) 07:20, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When you closed Shirley Phelps-Roper, you wrote "removed tag, AfD discussion closed as keep" in your edit summary. Would you include the link to the AfD in the future? Something like "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shirley Phelps-Roper closed as keep". From the page history, editors cannot easily access the AfD since neither you nor the nominator included the link in your edit summaries. They would have to go to either the talk page or the old diffs of the article to access the AfD.

These are some minor concerns; nothing to worry about at all. Having reviewed your closes, I am impressed by your closing statements, something which many admins fail to do, even for contentious closures. Best, Cunard (talk) 07:39, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have not added an oldafd template to Talk:Greater Bangladesh after your closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greater Bangladesh. When you close an AfD in the future, please do so. Cunard (talk) 00:16, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'd like to enquire about your closure of the above AfD. In the AfD, there was one argument for deletion due to lack of notability (mine), two arguments to merge due to lack of notability, one 'argument' to keep which was completely unsubstantiated despite significant dialogue, and one argument too keep which provided one or two vaguely reliable sources.

Your statement observed that the "need for more independent and reliable sources to establish notability [is] noted, and it appears that other editors are locating those." However, not a single third party reliable source has been added to the page before or since: since it is completely devoid of such, it transparently fails the general notability guideline, and I therefore consider your decision to have been misguided, and I wonder whether you might consider changing it? Best, ╟─TreasuryTag►Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster─╢ 16:49, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't change a ruling without it going to debate of some sort. Wikipedia:Deletion review would be the place you would want to take this up. Alternatively, you can renominate it, citing that sources were not added to the article. Mandsford 22:43, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, according to WP:DRV#What is this page for? I can't nominate for deletion-review until having asked you to reconsider! However, I will now list it there. ╟─TreasuryTag►inspectorate─╢ 08:43, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by The Transhumanist (talk • contribs)

Hi Mandsford, Thanks for helping with the afd closures. Just wanted to point out that admins typically add the template linking to the afd to article talk pages of articles that are closed as Keep. Best, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:53, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I brought this up above. Mandsford, when you remove the AfD template from the article, the {{Oldafd}} template is usually placed on the talk page. For example, Nava Applebaum contained the following text:

<!-- Please do not remove or change this AfD message until the issue is settled -->

{{AfDM|page=Nava Applebaum|year=2010|month=October|day=11|substed=yes}}

<!-- For administrator use only: {{Old AfD multi|page=Nava Applebaum|date=11 October 2010|result='''keep'''}} -->

<!-- End of AfD message, feel free to edit beyond this point --> </nowiki>

If an AfD is closed as keep, the template, {{Old AfD multi|page=Nava Applebaum|date=11 October 2010|result='''keep'''}}, should be placed on Talk:Nava Applebaum. I did that here. Cunard (talk) 23:20, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks-- I'll use that as my example. Mandsford 23:21, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Cunard (talk) 23:23, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{Old AfD multi|page= (article name)|date=(date it was nominated)day/month/year|result=keep}

Your comment made me LOL. Bearian (talk) 23:56, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! Female Servants in 18th Century England has been accepted into the Article Incubator. Please see the talk page for the entry review and suggested tasks. Thanks.     Eclipsed   ¤     14:45, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article you offered comment on no longer exists. Using your comments as a guide, Uncle G did a complete rewrite, added some quite decent sources, and moved the article to its new name... "The Nerds". Perhaps you might wish to revisit the AFD? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:29, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I love how you totally dodged the article's lack of sources. Does it not concern you that none exist? Notability is never inherited, you know that. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 04:39, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You don't think that there's a source that would prove that the characters of the #1 show on television were introduced on a 2002 episode of "JAG"? The test for notability of a TV episode is whether it had real world significance. Even guys like I, who always hated the TV episode and TV character articles that predominated when I first came here in 2007, can see the importance of this one. Try something easier, like nominating "The Trouble With Tribbles", or that episode of I Love Lucy where they worked at the candy factory. Sorry 10-lb., I usually agree with you, but you can't win 'em all.

Bearing in mind your view on bus routes [3] and on redirecting without prior discussion [4], what would you think of an edit like this? If it wasn't for redirection without discussion there would be around 200 more bad bus route articles than there are... Alzarian16 (talk) 16:28, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mandsford. Please remember to use the AfD close templates I informed you about earlier (1 and 2). You forgot to do so at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Southern California Chinatowns and other recent AfDs you closed. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:09, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I get it now-- as dopey as it sounds, I was looking on the talk pages to see if there was a tag that would need to be edited to insert the result. I've got something to paste on each one now. Gee, it's so much easier to delete an article than to keep one, and after seeing the process for a merge, I can see why admins don't like doing that. Mandsford 14:05, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, this script: User:Mr.Z-man/closeAFD - is very useful. Jujutacular ^talk 21:45, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK thanks for the tip Linda Rider (talk) 20:38, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Regarding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roman Catholic Mariology I think there was 8 votes of 10 consensus to follow my merger proposal of a 3 way merger. Is that the clear consensus? Why is there any need for further merge discussion when 8 out of 10 votes already support. I think Afd closure should respect the 8/10 consensus expressed by the users. And if the users support both mergers, why pick one for merge and the other for discussion. No preference was expressed by voting users for merging with one vs the other except the nominator. The 8 voting users did not ask for more merge flags, but supported my proposal. I think that consensus should be respected now just as the Afd closes. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 19:02, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So you are saying that there is consensus for a 3 way merger, but we need suggestions on how to merge? If so, please state that on the Afd closure rather suggesting a 2nd round of voting on a merger for Catholic views on Mary. Your help in explicitly recommending the 8/10 consensus for a 3 way merger expressed by the voting users will be appreciated. There needs to be clarity that the 3 articles have been the subject of consensus to merge. Your help in achieving clarity as expressed by consensus will be appreciated. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 19:21, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe someone else can close this to your satisfaction. Mandsford 19:29, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, but all I wanted was the acceptance of the 8/10 consensus, as clearly expressed on the page. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 19:30, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say it takes a lot of cheek to revert an administrator. I think this is a clear example of own. History2007 is now claiming ownership of the AfD. Unbelievable.Malke 2010 (talk) 19:54, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mandsford, just letting you know, History2007 just reverted you.[5]. Now you know what it's like trying to edit Marian articles. :/ Malke 2010 (talk) 19:50, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I did not revert him. Mandsford had restored to prior form. I just modified my own comment. History2007 (talk) 19:53, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did you intend to delete both the article and the AFD page or was this a glitch? :)

Looks like you closed it as "delete" and then deleted the AFD instead of the article. The AFD was restored by another admin. However, looking at the nomination and the 2 delete !votes, the first is actually the nominator's rationale and the second is making an invalid merge and delete argument. Furthermore, from looking at the nominator's talk page and contribs, there's a strong possibility that the nomination was pointy. Therefore, since the article hasn't actually been deleted yet, I think the best course of action is to relist the AFD. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 15:51, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mandsford. I've expanded the article a bit. Would you mind to check it again and perhaps clarify any confusion regarding anything I've written there? It would be great. No problem if you are not interested. Thanks. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 21:01, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's been awhile since the last update. I guess it's time to dust off the cobwebs. Just in time for the new year. Happy New Year!

By the way, Mandsford, congrats on your adminship.

The set of "Outline of" articles has grown to about 480. The ones currently being worked on are listed below. Please take a look at them to see if you notice anything you can add or improve. Here they are...

Recent additions include:

• Outline of basketball
• Outline of cricket
• Outline of tennis
• Outline of running
• Outline of canoeing and kayaking
• Outline of motorcycles and motorcycling

Outlines recently moved from draft space to article space:

• Outline of Saskatchewan

Outlines undergoing overhaul include:

• Outline of culture
• Outline of geography

Except for Saskatchewan, all the entries above include descriptive annotations to aid in topic selection. Please add as many missing annotations to those as you can.

To assist in the maintenance of the outlines and their support pages (such as in spotting and reversing vandalism), please watchlist them.

The wikiproject page has been overhauled. It includes tasks, guidelines, and a participants list.

See ya there!

The Transhumanist 03:20, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mandsford is a jerk. i hate him

• I understand. You have the right to seek deletion review at WP:DRV. Sometimes, depending on what the article was about, there are ways to preserve the information. Finally, something can be moved to your userspace where you can work on it at your own pace. If I knew which (deleted) article you're referring to, I could say more. Ask questions, and don't worry that you'll get in trouble, I'm not offended. Mandsford 01:48, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I created the page List of songs by Taylor Swift without aware/known that the page List of Taylor Swift songs previously nominated for deletion.

The page created by mine has new layout and I really hope that it will be kept, as I will make further improvement to it. Have your say here, thank you. I will notice other users joined above AfD, too. Silvergoat (talk∙contrib) 08:39, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your closing statement notes that No argument has been made that Saarelma would be notable without benefit of WP:ATHLETE which ignores the argument I made that he seems to have significant coverage in Finnish and Estonian sources. Nfitz (talk) 19:51, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your statement was a suggestion that he would meet WP:GNG, although that's not the same as meeting Wikipedia:Notability (people). However, if you want me to amend the sentence from "No argument has been made" to "No argument has been made, except by User:Nfitz", that is a reasonable request. Mandsford 20:00, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Surely if he meets either WP:GNG or meets the intent of WP:ATHLETE then it's a keep. As he does both, then the issue seems to bigger than simply modifying the closing text. Nfitz (talk) 20:10, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not up to me to say that WP:ATHLETE means that "fully professional" was intended to mean "almost completely professional". That's something that should has to be brought up with the people at WikiProject Football. I'm not disagreeing with you about the inequities of the rule. Were it up to me, the free pass would be limited to the persons at the highest level football/soccer leagues in their respective nations. What I would like it to be, however, is not the same as what it is. Mandsford 20:30, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it's up to you. If you don't like the rule, don't close it! But surely that's irrelevant as he appears to meet WP:GNG. Nfitz (talk) 02:16, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The decision stands. You may seek review under Wikipedia:Deletion review. Mandsford 04:24, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I didn't notice that you were closing; it takes me quite a while to compose notes sometime, so it's likely I had started before you posted at the top, though I got no edit conflict notice. Regardless, since it's from our current acting attorney, it's probably worth the addition to the page. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 02:13, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. As you are clearly interested in editing articles about 20th century history, I hope that you will not mind my pointing out that Clement Attlee is spelt thus, and not with a single T. No offence meant, thanks and best wishes, DBaK (talk) 11:00, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the nice reply! Happy editing, cheers, DBaK (talk) 14:02, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mandsford,

As you probably know, I'm in the process of getting the outline development team back up to speed.

The current focus is on increasing the availability of outlines (links and search engine results). If readers can't find the outlines, the outlines can't help them. We need to figure out the best places to put links, and the best ways to attract external traffic directly to these pages.

Here's one possibility for the far future: Wikipedia:Main Page alternative (outline links). If you'd rather not wait, and would like to set this as your default main page, see the instructions.

Tarheel95 and Robert Skyhawk are working on a project to track traffic to outline pages.

Your input is needed at discussion on outline traffic analysis.

All ideas and feedback are welcome. I look forward to seeing you there. The Transhumanist 20:59, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As you contributed to this article, or commented at its first AfD, you may be like to contribute at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suicide of Nicola Raphael (2nd nomination). JohnCD (talk) 14:48, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please provide a little more detail as to what was missing from this AfD nomination? Thanks! VQuakr (talk) 02:24, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mandsford. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:01, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I like your suggestion of smerging some material from History of the Constitution of the Roman Republic#From the Gracchi to Caesar (133–49 BC) along with its footnotes. However, I feel a fit insecure about how to do that while preserving attribution. Can you please do it, Obi Wan Mandsford? You are my only hope.... I'll cut and past the images for now. Bearian (talk) 22:27, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to take a crack at it this weekend. Please revert me if I screw up. Bearian (talk) 16:44, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind going to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abbotts Mill, Delaware and commenting with your opinion on the deletion I proposed? As a past contributor to the Gwinhurst, Delaware deletion thread and numerous other articles, I thought you may have knowledge whether Abbotts Mill, Delaware is a community or not. Thanks. Superman7515 (talk) 02:15, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar is a shiny electronic award. Bearian (talk) 17:59, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked for a deletion review of Kingfisher Airlines Flight 4124 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 February 20. Mjroots (talk) 06:21, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mandsford. Thanks for the comment on the Syrian protests AfD. I was wondering, where should one list such article to garner further input/discussion. Although I have been involved in some other AfD discussions before, this is the first one I've started, so I'm not quite familiar with the procedure. I'd like to get more input from other uninvolved editors, because I don't want to this to look like a personal vendetta (which is far from it), and a discussion of my motives rather than the article itself. Thanks. Yazan (talk) 11:52, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice and the response. I'll just let the AfD take its course I guess, and get back to ancient history (which has a lot of notability, but fewer articles in the NYT than a Lebanese hummus dish). Cheers! Yazan (talk) 08:52, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Guoguo12--Talk--  20:55, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing this [6] in today's AFD log. If something's gone south in the relisting process, you're not likely to get any input from uninvolved editors. Of course, I also think the relist reasoning was way off base, as I have commented at the AFD, and think the discussion should just be closed as delete. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:53, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the latest addition to the religion section of Portal:Contents/Outlines. Wikipedia has rich coverage on this subject. Very interesting, especially from sociological and historical perspectives.

• Outline of Sikhism

This is a call to all members of the Outline WikiProject and outline aficionados to help refine this outline. It needs annotations, missing topics added, and the entries in the general concepts section placed in more specific sections. Let's turn it into a beehive.

Come join in on the fun and get acquainted with members of the Outline WikiProject!

The Transhumanist 04:52, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.: I had no idea this religion was so extensive or that it had so many followers. Hope to see you on the outline!

Will you look again at Swedish diaspora, I have expanded it from the two sentences and no references it had when you voted to delete, to several paragraphs and a dozen references. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:51, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mandsford. Because you participated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of YouTube celebrities (4th nomination), your input is sought at Talk:List of YouTube personalities#RfC: The criteria for inclusion on List of YouTube personalities. There are disputes over who should be and who shouldn't be included in the list. Cunard (talk) 23:12, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As you commented in the previous AFD (closed as no consensus), you may be interested in commenting at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Academic Sports League (2nd nomination). NW (Talk) 04:30, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Daniel Hernandez Jr. is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Hernandez Jr. until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:56, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings Mandsford, at this AfD, I'm puzzled by your reversal, particularly when my approach didn't change (it was just worded differently the second time). Would you mind elaborating? I think what is key here is the group of 12 be deleted. The other 20 could be revisited at a later date if they do end up being abandoned. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 17:37, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. It appears I have unnecessarily muddied things by providing a position on the 12 (delete), and stating a preference on the other 20 (delete if they aren't improved) instead of an outright position. To be more direct, my official positions are delete the 12 and keep the 20. However on the latter, I provide the disclaimer that if they survive the AfD, yet aren't improved as a result, my position would be to delete on a second nomination. I will clarify this at the AfD. Based on past experience, can you advise of the likelihood the 12 will be deleted as a result of the AfD, noting that I'm the only one thus to officially provide a bolded position? If slim, would removal of the 20 by the nominator improve the likelihood? Hwy43 (talk) 05:39, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

hi Mandsford, could you please also delete Unchain the Wolves which is within the same AfD result. LibStar (talk) 02:19, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I noticed you Deleted the page Second Revolution flag, I thought that in terms of no consensus that wiki pages were to be kept not deleted? Can u tell me the policies concerning this issue. [[7]] --Duchamps_comb MFA 15:29, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, thanks for letting me know, and no need to apologize for any inconvenience. As for the DRV, it seems to me that the user simply missed the 2nd DRV and was therefore confused by the result, and it does look like you tried to clear everything up on their talk page. I actually was going to specify that this was a renomination at the time, but I noticed that the user had been on hiatus for a little while and this probably wasn't necessary. By the look of things, it doesn't seem like the confusion really affected the AfD result, since unless I'm missing something the user didn't start editing again until recently. I'm not really sure if there's a need for a DRV yet; the user had the second AfD pointed out to them and it doesn't seem that they've raised any issue since (although this certainly could change). That being said, based on the look of the 2nd AfD being contested, I'm not sure how any other interpretation could really be seen and it may be somewhat of a WP:SNOW issue. Of course, I easily could be missing or misinterpreting something obvious here, so whatever you think is the right move here is probably OK by me. Best, Yaksar (let's chat) 18:04, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see, the wrong link was posted in the Twinkle notification, my bad. A lot of what I said above is no longer particularly relevant, although some of it still is. But I've moved my main points to the DRV, so I hope you'll read them there. Thanks again!--Yaksar (let's chat) 01:42, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for chiming in at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Justin Watts. A very similar discussion that you might also find interesting can be found here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leslie McDonald. -Blueman33 (talk) 06:11, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did you have a script misfire and delete Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Top upcoming designer 2011 instead of the related article? You noted the discussion "closed as delete", yet you deleted the AfD. It looks like the same thing happened with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Haunted Hacienda (novel). —C.Fred (talk) 18:50, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to be thorough, check your deleted contributions history for any others. (None jumped out at me.) For the two mentioned here:

1. Click the red link to the AfD
2. Click "(view/restore)" on the deletion log line
3. "Select all" in the restore revisions
4. Give a reason for the restore, e.g., "Oops, deleted the AfD instead of the article."
5. Restore

Then you can delete the underlying article from the related close. —C.Fred (talk) 18:58, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One other best-practices note: don't delete the log entry for where you deleted it the first time. Just suck it up and admit that you did it by mistake. I'm sure if I check my logs, I've done the same somewhere along the line. It's easier on everybody to just have an explanation on the restore along the lines of "Didn't mean to do that" than to guess what happened with the deletion. —C.Fred (talk) 19:04, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Haunted Hacienda (novel) I think the article was supposed to go away, NOT the AfD discussion. WuhWuzDat 18:53, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Re the deletion discussion over article you deleted 'Ahmed Tarek Bahgat Abaza' .. the problem was not enough secondary sources..two more have come:

http://www.aucklandmuseum.com/?t=1601 http://www.thread.co.nz/news/5796/15/Talk-like-an-Egyptian/d,thread-article http://www.aucklandmuseum.com/?t=1602#music

which are enough to show his activities and coverage if added to all original links.--kellyrussell34 (talk) 19:03, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. User Altaf shaik (talk) requested restoration of this article at WP:REFUND#amir of bimlipatnam. I declined and told him to go first to you and then to DRV. He came back on my talk page to say you were offline; I explained about sources and notability, but he asked me to file a DRV for him, so I have done that at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 May 12, and this is to notify you. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 09:36, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Outline of relationships was nominated for deletion.

It was then overhauled and the nomination was withdrawn.

Before → After.

Only a couple members from the Outlines WikiProject showed up at the AfD.

Do you have Wikipedia:WikiProject Outlines/Article alerts watchlisted?

If not, please watchlist it.

Thank you. The Transhumanist 09:29, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please solve this mystery if you can...

On September 23rd, traffic to Portal:James Bond doubled, and has stayed at the new level since then. I can't figure out what happened.

See http://stats.grok.se/en/201109/Portal%3AJames_Bond

Traffic to Outline of James Bond stayed the same (though it was at the higher-level already), which leads me to suspect changes made somewhere in Wikipedia.

See http://stats.grok.se/en/201109/Outline%20of%20James_Bond

I'd like to find out what happened, in case it reveals helpful link placement tips that can double the traffic to outlines too!

I look forward to your reply. The Transhumanist 22:40, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Usually, sudden increase in interest in a subject can be blamed on it being in the public eye. My first thought was that there had been a movie marathon around September 23, though I see a correlation with news on the same day that the 23rd James Bond film will begin production soon. [8]. Mandsford 23:37, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One would expect that to affect James Bond and Outline of James Bond as well, but the traffic for those pages stayed about the same. The Transhumanist 23:47, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please go to Portal:Contents/Outlines' and fill in as many missing annotations as you can, even if it's only one or two. Every little bit helps!

The annotating of the entries on Portal:Contents/Outlines is nearing completion.

Annotated entries look like this:

• Basketball – team sport in which two teams of five players try to score points by throwing or "shooting" a ball through the top of a basketball hoop while following a set of rules.
• Canoeing and kayaking – two closely related forms of watercraft paddling, involving manually propelling and navigating specialized boats called canoes and kayaks using a blade that is joined to a shaft, known as a paddle, in the water.
• Cricket – bat-and-ball team sport, the most popular form played on an oval-shaped outdoor arena known as a cricket field at the centre of which is a rectangular 22-yard (20.12 m) long pitch that is the focus of the game.
• Martial arts – extensive systems of codified practices and traditions of combat, practiced for a variety of reasons, including self-defense, competition, physical health and fitness, as well as mental and spiritual development.

Entries needing annotations look like this:

• Industry –
• Construction –
• Architecture –
• Machines –
• Industrial machinery –