Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 09:58, 17 June 2012

This user is one of the 400 most active English Wikipedians of all time.

If you are considering initiating an xfd on material I started

2004, 2005, 2006-01--2006-06, 2006-07--2006-10, 2006-10--2005-12, 2007-01--2007-06, 2007-07--2007-09, 2007-10--2007-12, 2008-01--2008-06, 2008-07--2008-09, 2008-10--2008-12, 2009-01--2009-03, 2009-04--2009-06, 2009-07--2009-09, 2009-10--2009-12, 2010-01, 2010-02, 2010-03, 2010-04, 2010-05, 2010-06, 2010-07, 2010-08, 2010-09, 2010-10, 2010-11, 2010-12, 2011-01, 2011-02, 2011-03, 2011-04, 2011-05, 2011-06, 2011-07, 2011-08, 2011-09, 2011-10, 2011-11, 2011-12, 2012-01, 2012-02, 2012-03, 2012-04, 2012-05, 2012-06, 2012-07, 2012-08, 2012-09, 2012-10, 2012-11, 2012-12, 2013-01, 2013-02, 2013-03, 2013-04, 2013-05, 2013-06, 2013-07, 2013-08, 2013-09, 2013-10, 2013-11, 2013-12, 2014-01, 2014-02, 2014-03, 2014-04, 2014-05, 2014-06, 2014-07, 2014-08, 2014-09, 2014-10, 2014-11, 2014-12, 2015-01, 2015-02, 2015-03, 2015-04, 2015-05, 2015-06, 2015-07, 2015-08, 2015-09, 2015-10, 2015-11, 2015-12, 2016-01, 2016-02, 2016-03, 2016-04, 2016-05, 2016-06, 2016-07, 2016-08, 2016-09, 2016-10, 2016-11, 2016-12, 2017-01, 2017-02, 2017-03, 2017-04, 2017-05, 2017-06, 2017-07, 2017-08, 2017-09, 2017-10, 2017-11, 2017-12, 2018-01, 2018-02, 2018-03, 2018-04, 2018-05, 2018-06, 2018-07, 2018-08, 2018-09, 2018-10, 2018-11, 2018-12, 2019-01, 2019-02, 2019-03, 2019-04, 2019-05, 2019-06, 2019-07, 2019-08, 2019-09, 2019-10, 2019-11, 2019-12, 2020-01, 2020-02, 2020-03, 2020-04, 2020-05, 2020-06, 2020-07, 2020-08, 2020-09, 2020-10, 2020-11, User Talk:Geo Swan/archive/list

Replaceable fair use File:Shoshana Johnson being interviewed by Arab TV.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Shoshana Johnson being interviewed by Arab TV.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Misplaced Pages articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Hammersoft (talk) 15:14, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, something odd here. Contributor above is suggesting that an image of a remarkable one time event is replaceable.

Ms Johnson is unlikely to ever be a POW again. In the unlikely event she is, she is likely to have captors who don`t force her to appear on their TV networks. Geo Swan (talk) 15:31, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

cut and paste from User talk:Hammersoft

Thanks for honoring the reocmmendation and and leaving me a heads up when you nominated the image for deletion. I placed the disputed tag because I think you overlooked that the image is of a one-time event -- Ms Johnson while a POW. Images of POWs are almost never broadcast by their captors. Geo Swan (talk) 15:48, 1 June 2012 (UTC) consolidating discussion from my talk page --Hammersoft (talk) 16:02, 1 June 2012 (UTC) I've found replacements for both non-free images on the article, and both are public domain as works of the United States military. I'll be uploading them to Commons shortly, and placing them in the article. The first image, File:Shoshana Johnson being interviewed by Arab TV.jpg, is used "to illustrate a historically important person" in the infobox on her page. I've found a much, much higher quality image that performs the same task. The second image, File:Shoshana Johnson, at the end of her rescue.jpg, I have found an image from the same event, from a different angle, made by a member of the U.S. military. It will serve the same purpose as well. The first image might be appropriate for use somewhere in the article, tied to secondary sourced prose regarding the Al Jazeera interview. I'll leave that to you to craft if you want to include it. In the infobox, for depiction purposes, it's inappropriate. I'll advise here when I'm done making changes. Thanks, ::--Hammersoft (talk) 16:02, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

• Done. Please note File:Shoshana Johnson, at the end of her rescue.jpg and File:Shoshana Johnson being interviewed by Arab TV.jpg are both now orphaned. I will not tag them as such to give you an opportunity to respond. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:27, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

You found a higher quality image of her, that both shows her while she is in captivity -- and is in the public domainʔ

You are correct that the description field and the purpose field of the image template should have more clearly explained how rare and irreplacable an image of a POW is. Geo Swan (talk) 16:31, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

• Perhaps. I have no opinion on how rare such an event is or is not. The image might be useful in the context of such a secondary sourced discussion on the article. As the article stands now, Al Jazeera is not mentioned. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:33, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Shoshana Johnson, at the end of her rescue.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Shoshana Johnson, at the end of her rescue.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have questions, please post them here.
• I will automatically remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please ask an admin to turn it off here.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 01:07, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Akhbarona

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Akhbarona requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. SL93 (talk) 21:44, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Still needed?

Hi! I'm wondering if these files are still needed. File:Ref-1-context a.png and File:Ref-2-context-a.png. If yes just ignore this message and if no perhaps you could request a deletion? --MGA73 (talk) 16:48, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

I've also wondered if they were still worth keeping. Have you ever use {{ref}} template? Clearly superior to roll your own <ref></ref> pair contents, clearly inferior to {{cite}} templates enclosed within <ref></ref>.

I just checked -- there are still over 15,000 articles that use the older {{ref}} templates.

If you never used them the major disadvantage is that the order the references were listed in was the order within the list at the end of the article -- so if you moved a paragraph, and that resulted in a reference appearing later or earlier in the article, you had manually move its corresponding spot in the reference list.

Anyhow, that is why I hadn't requested deletion earlier. I'll do so now. Geo Swan (talk) 17:21, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your reply. It was the "If you are considering initiating an xfd on material I started" on your userpage that gave me the idea to ask you. And now it resulted in a suggestion on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Images_and_Media/Commons/Drives#Orphan_images. We have many good files that will never be used because they have a bad description. So I think it would be a big step forward if uploaders checked and fixed the discription of the files. And if the file is no longer usable there is no reason that other users spend long time trying to figure out what the files show. --MGA73 (talk) 18:22, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Now that I'm here to disturb you anyway I just got the idea to give you a link to all the unused files where you are listed as the uploader: Some of the files looks quite usable for Commons but I thought I would let you have a look first. --MGA73 (talk) 17:13, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Mustaq Aksari for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Mustaq Aksari is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Mustaq Aksari 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 high-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. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ 15:52, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Fast Response Cutter

Thanks for the comments. I've now deleted it. Nyttend (talk) 02:12, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks Geo Swan (talk) 02:16, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Stephen Manning

--Bduke (Discussion) 22:24, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

• Bduke confirmed that although I had inserted a wikilink to an article on Stephen Manning, I had not edited the article, which was speedy deleted. It looks like the link I left was a red-link. I thanked them for their prompt attention to my request. Geo Swan (talk) 16:28, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Did I post a comment about the wikipedia to the RISKS digest?

Greetings!

Yes, I will confirm, onwiki, that I posted a followup comment to the RISKS digest about a public relations industry criticism of the wikipedia.

In it I spoke about the article on the Somali based remittance firm Dahabshiil, and the undercover investigation of UK public relations firm Bell Pottinger that they had successfully employed shills -- actors paid to pretend to be genuine wikipedia volunteers -- to "subtly and gradually remove" information their clients wanted to suppress.

Yes, I would be interested in participating in any followup discussions triggered by my comment -- onwiki or elsewhere. I will keep any comments emailed to me private. To anyone emailing me, please use the "email user" feature here -- as I rarely use the e-mail address I used to make the RISKS post.

FWIW, there is a discussion at uk.wikimedia.org, that touches on Bell Pottinger.

FWIW, the article on Dahabshiil was nominated for deletion, triggered I believe by a discussion somewhere of the reports on Bell Pottinger. I'll try to track down those discussions.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 16:28, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Review

Hello. I think you're good at reviewing people's edits. Can you review me here? Thanks. Your review will be very valuable. Dipankan 06:58, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Fadil Husayn Salih Hintif for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Fadil Husayn Salih Hintif is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Fadil Husayn Salih Hintif 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 high-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. DBigXray 09:15, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Kwasind for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Kwasind is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Kwasind 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 high-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. DBigXray 10:23, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Ongiara (ship, 1885) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ongiara (ship, 1885) is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Ongiara (ship, 1885) 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 high-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. DBigXray 12:17, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Rahmatullah Mansoor for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Rahmatullah Mansoor is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Rahmatullah Mansoor 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 high-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. DBigXray 12:35, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

articles violating WP:N

after your reply i looked at the history both of these were started in March-April 2012 so the policies were still the same when you had started--DBigXray 15:17, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Patrice McAllister (ship, 1919)

Patrice McAllister (ship, 1919) any comments of why this is notable enough ? --DBigXray 13:37, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Whatcom Chief

Whatcom Chief could not find anything that makes this ferry notable to be included here. Please comment. regards--DBigXray 13:47, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

a request

You have nominated four articles I started for deletion in less than four hours. A meaningful response to an {{afd}} takes time, and I suggest it is not in the best interests of the project to nominate for deletion a series of articles all started by a single individual. Geo Swan (talk) 12:41, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

• I guess keeping non notable articles is also not in the best interest of the project, I have raised valid concerns regarding the problems with these articles, I will be glad if these concerns can be satisfied. In my opinion such articles violating WP:N should not have been started in the first place. As for the time in AFD, you can help saving the time of the community by nominating it yourself if you agree with my reasons. I dont see any better way other than a discussion. Thanks. --DBigXray 13:12, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I do take good faith concerns seriously. I do place a {{db-author}} on articles, where I have been the sole contributor of intellectual content, and another contributor raises what I agree were valid concerns.

I have been on the wikipedia for a long time, and there are articles I started that were completely compliant with the policies and standards current then, that would not comply with today's standards. Some of those were kept up to date by other individuals. Some weren't kept up to standard, but probably could be brought up to date, with some effort. There are articles that complied with the standards current when they were written, but probably can't be made to comply with today's sandards, and I will happily place an {{db-g7}} on these. Our rules are arcane, and are in a constant state of flux -- so it is possible I started some articles that didn't comply with the standards current at the time they were started. These too would merit a {{db-g7}}.

I have written on topics that attracted a lot of vandals, who employed sockpuppetry and other disgusting practices to impede my efforts. If you took their assertions about my efforts at face value you would believe I was a vandal who didn't deserve any assumption of good faith. I encourage you to not take any such claims you have come across at face value. Many of my most persistent critics have ended up being permanently blocked.

You wrote above, "I dont see any better way other than a discussion." I see you request contributors with a concern over your contributions leave a comment on the article's talk page, and leave you a heads-up on your talk page. This seems like a very reasonable request, and I made a similar request. Between reasonable people this is the approach which uses the least community resources, and I request you treat my contributions the same way you requested your own contributions be treated.

With regard to the concerns you voiced about the Patrice McCallister and the other vessel -- the Hintif article had been heavily vandalized prior to your placement of the {{afd}}. Fixing this vandalized article will be a lot of work, work that has to be done right now, before too many others weigh in, because practically no one ever changes their mind once they have voiced an opinion at {{afd}}. So, I really don't think I have time to look at them, until I have finished responding to the Hintif afd, and the other 3 afd. Geo Swan (talk) 14:32, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

• Establishing Notability is the first and the most important thing on the article. The author needs to satisfy WP:N before starting the article. All you need is proper refs that show that the article is notable. The boats i Have AfDed are non notable now (or even 2 year back) when they were started, there is nothing that makes them notable. I have left a note on your talk page. If you agree with me you can place {{db-g7}} .
• Also I dont think using phrases such as Many of my most persistent critics have ended up being permanently blocked. help our discussion in any way, as this amounts to a veiled threat. regards--DBigXray 14:43, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
  • With regard to vieled threats. Only one of the sockpuppet masters who wikistalked me were blocked because I complained about them. That was back in 2005. She seemed to be going through some kind breakdown that prevented her from understanding what she was doing wrong. As I recall I asked for some kind of advice, and the administrator in question saw that she had left messages with the passwords of wiki-ids she was no longer using, which was grounds for an instant block.

I mentioned how some of my challengers who claimed I am a big vandal had themselves been blocked for vandalism solely as a reason for you to not take those criticisms at face velue. Geo Swan (talk) 15:23, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

After your request i have started a discussion on

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Patrice_McAllister_(ship,_1919)#notability and
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Whatcom_Chief#notability --DBigXray 15:28, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I dont think i have ever called you vandal or disruptive ? all i say is i find these articles non - notable You are a great editor indeed, no doubt about that. But when we read a lot about something then anything related to our favourite subject seems to be notable, so its not entirely your fault. please do not get offended by the deletion requests. and WP:AGF thanks --DBigXray 15:33, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Frankfurt (icebreaker) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Frankfurt (icebreaker) is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Frankfurt (icebreaker) 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 high-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. DBigXray 18:22, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Keiler for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Keiler is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Keiler 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 high-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. DBigXray 22:24, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Participating in Deletion discussion

It was already pointed out to you once earlier by another editor. I am doing it again, please check WP:DISCUSSAFD which clearly states.

"Please disclose whether you are the article's creator, a substantial or minor contributor, or if you otherwise have a vested interest in the article; WP:AVOIDCOI."

I hope this is clear enough, and you will include it in your comments. Thanks --DBigXray 20:50, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

• Would you Explain why you are so inclined to hide that you are commenting as the article's creator ? clearly violating policies ? --DBigXray 21:01, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

• • Could you please be more careful? Editing other contributor's comments is also not a good idea. As I explained on User talk:DBigXray#explanation, I think you didn't read my comment carefully enough. Geo Swan (talk) 21:51, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

DBigXray cut a comment I left on his or her talk page, and pasted them here on my page. A few contributors do this. But I find it disruptive, and I am going to excise those comments.

Please do not point fingers at others, I see a vested interest in you hiding this fact that you are article creator, Please follow the policies, specially if you are requested to do so. --DBigXray 21:06, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Your talk page, your rules. On my talk page I request you leave comments in a simpler way, that is not potentially misleading.

Could you please stop cutting and pasting comments from your talk page to mine? First, that it potentially misleading to third parties, as the timestamps on the comments are bogus. Second, the way you do this requires you to make a series of multiple edit, and both earlier today, and just now, I kept butting up against edit conflicts, because you kept editing my talk page unnecessarily.

If you choose to place a comment on my talk page, and you want to reference a comment I left on your talk page, I request you make a SINGLE edit -- and place a simple diff to the comments on your talk page. Geo Swan (talk) 21:51, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

• Roger, Its good to keep things/comments together isnt it :). sorry for the (edit conflict). So are you going to Disclose your COI as the creator on the AfD dicussions or not ? --DBigXray 22:04, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

• I will explicitly disclaim my initiation in these {{afd}}s. I won't promise to remember to always do so in future. I will think about it.

Are you sure that being the initiator of an article places an individual in a conflict of interest?

In the comment that initiated this thread you quoted WP:DISCUSSAFD

"Please disclose whether you are the article's creator, a substantial or minor contributor, or if you otherwise have a vested interest in the article; WP:AVOIDCOI."

You called the passage you quoted "clear". I suggest it can't be that clear, as I disagree that this passage was intended to say article contributors or initiators had a conflict of interest. Rather, I suggest, everything after the "or" is addressed to those who would be considered to have a conflict of interest as described in WP:COI. I suggest this passage was not meant to imply anyone in the first part of the passage was in a conflict of interest. As per WP:AGF, every contributor should be assumed to be able and willing to put the interests of the project ahead of ego attachment to material they contributed to.

Really, that passage recommends even those who made minor edits making a disclaimer. If everyone complied with this recommendation practically every {{xfd}} would have mutliple disclaimers, and, in some xfd more than 50 percent of contributors would have left a disclaimer.

It seems to me that WP:AVOIDCOI says nothing about disclaimers. Geo Swan (talk) 22:46, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

• It clearly says Please disclose whether you are the article's creator as the comments of the creator will be obviously biased to save his work. I have seen creators using (as creator) when they participate. AS you were already reminded twice you cannot plead, ignorance. In case you are not happy with this policy then you can try getting it removed. As of now it is there and being a responsible editor you are expected to follow them. Thanks--DBigXray 09:37, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

You have removed your "adminhelp" but as I had written a response I may as well give it: WP:AVOIDCOI, and the whole WP:COI guideline, are about conflicts between an editor's external interests and their WP activities. I do not think the passage quoted from WP:DISCUSSAFD is very clearly written, but an article creator's interest in defending his article only involves a different opinion about what is best for the encyclopedia, not a conflict between the encyclopedia's interests and outside ones.

• DISCUSSAFD is advice, "a few basic practices that most Wikipedians use", not cast-iron law;
• declaration of authorship is a courtesy, rather than an essential disclosure, because the article history is available both to other AfD contributors and to the closing administrator;
• the closer will in any case be considering the arguments advanced rather than the motives of the contributors.

I think this discussion has run its course, and I suggest it is now concluded. JohnCD (talk) 09:58, 17 June 2012 (UTC)