User talk:Spartaz/Archive18

The Dating Guy[edit]

I'm quite certain there are older revisions of the talk page for this article - could you restore these as part of the userification?

I'll have a look. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:05, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you check I got them all back? Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:11, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's kind of hard for me to check that given that I can't see deleted revisions. All I can say is that it seems you now deleted the latest revisions (the ones that were there before I made this request). Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 21:14, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - I can't see any deleted revisions at either your user space or the original location so they must all be restored. I dunno what date the stuff on the page was at but it must be somewhere in the history now. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:35, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - You're probably right - I now think what was there before was simply an old revision that had been restored by the other administrator, not a new one. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 21:42, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I would like to clarify that I wasn't attacking anyone - merely stating my opinion (perhaps a bit harshly). Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 20:57, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You labelled everyone you disagreed with in a way designed to devalue their opinions. This is utterly unacceptable and won't be tolerated the next time if I'm around DRV. You can disagree with someone without calling them names and you are lucky I was on a wikibreak as I would have closed the DRV out of hand. Please don't do it again. Users who challenge XFD outcomes need a neutral supportive place to work through the deletion and if we haven't lost them after the XFD we will have after an agreesive DRV. Thanks. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:05, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- While there isn't much point in arguing about this now, I would like to note that I did not in fact call anyone names at all - the so-called attack that was referred to on that page was something else entirely. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 21:09, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Some of your labels - "the delete crowd" * "deletionist bias" * "You're clearly a deletionist" * " you can see that anyone who doesn't want this article restored doesn't want to follow Wikipedia policy" - All of these are polemic statements that add no value to the discussion and just make you look strident and agressive. You can surely express yourself as clearly without needing to be so dismissive of those you disagree with?? Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:18, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Given the number of essays on the subject, I thought calling people "deletionists" wasn't considered an attack at all (and the latter statement obviously isn't an attack). If there's some policy against this that I'm not aware of, I'd appreciate you providing me with a link to it. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 21:22, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - You are right about that and in retrospect I shouldn't have used the term attack on the close. I have therefore removed the comment with my apologies. That said, it was labelling and that can be just as bad. I firmly believe that labelling people you disagree with isn't acceptable as it cheapens and coarsens the discussion and raises the temperature unnecesserily - and frankly adds no value. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:30, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        I appreciate the removal of that statement. I do see your point despite not fully agreeing with it, and as I stated below, I will try to be less aggressive in similar future discussions. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 21:42, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll definitely try to be less aggressive next time, though. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 21:10, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Pleased to hear it. You will get a better discussion too with users more willing to chip in. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:18, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've just found out that the userified page is still protected. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 21:00, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll fix that. I didn't know protection moved with a page. Spartaz ^Humbug!

Some bubble tea for you![edit]

I'm sure someone's not gonna be happy with your DRV close of the Obermeyer case, so here ya go. Thanks for the tough decisions. ~Charmlet ^-talk- 22:39, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While I think delete was a reasonable close and so the redirect should not have been overturned (I don't think non-public is so well defined that it clearly doesn't apply to her), I think your closing statement was clear and reasonable. Hard close, nice job. Hobit (talk) 03:49, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I want to add my voice to those applauding the close in this case. Jclemens (talk) 03:52, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the kind comments. Usually it only takes me a few minutes to close a DRV but this one took well over an hour while I reread all the policy and the AFD and considered the DRV. I'm glad to see the time wasn't wasted. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:49, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I was generally the same direction as Hobit on this one but I respect the effort you put into the close and your reading of consensus there. As above - hard close, nice job. Stalwart111 14:33, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

D-Cubed - revised article[edit]

Hi Spartaz,

Thanks for your advice concerning drafting a revised D-Cubed article (the original was recently deleted). If you could place the deleted article somewhere in my user area (I'm a new user so please forgive me if my terminology is not correct), that would be a useful starting point.

Thanks, MingleLane MingleLane (talk) 12:31, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done its at User:MingleLane/D-Cubed. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:35, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Spartaz. MingleLane (talk) 15:23, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2013 April 24[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2013 April 24. 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. Also affected: Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2013 June 8. Stefan2 (talk) 16:03, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

advertising spam on Wikipedia[edit]

Hey,

I like wikipedia but I hate spam and blatant advertising.

Aren't pages that are not backed by 3 or more real journalistic news articles or legitimate references (as required by wikipedia rules) forbidden?

If so, why are there pages with so many links to the company's own website and only one single reference to another site, which is not even really a news website, but rather a sponsored industry trade journal....

For example, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalara_International_Properties

Signed 50.7.174.130 (talk) 08:08, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another ad / spam[edit]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2Spot_Communications

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_Air

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property_Report

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_One_Plaza

,ost of these entries 'references' are either links to their own sites or dead links and the few that work refer to blogs or trade shows. There really should be an autobot which flag entries which have dead links or self-referential links = those are easy to spot. In the mean time, thanks for your help in keeping wikipedia clean and relevant!

141.0.169.142 (talk) 14:07, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Books and Bytes: The Wikipedia Library Newsletter[edit]

Books and Bytes

Volume 1, Issue 1, October 2013

by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs)

Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved...

New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian

Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted.

New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis??

New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges

News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY

Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions

New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration

Read the full newsletter

Thanks for reading! All future newsletters will be opt-in only. Have an item for the next issue? Leave a note for the editor on the Suggestions page. --The Interior 21:35, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your answer about Callicore[edit]

Hello Spartaz, Thank you for your help and your advices. As you noticed it, english is not my first language and I am French. Callicore is french too but works with english and amercican artists, that's why I try to write the article on english Wikipedia. I tried before on french wikipedia where the "admission criterion" was ok about the webby Award and the nomination Grammy Awards 2009 as co-editor and illustrator. But it wasn't enough because they seems don't really know what was a Weebby Awards, a Grammy, ... And how famous it is. So they suggest me to add more sources even if the Webby was enougt. Then I tried the english way (what i am doing right now) and hope you see and undertand what i am talking about :-) I gonna ask "The French wikiproject" for help. And thank for trying to correct my terrible english on my user page it was very nice, I am sure it wasn't easy! Callicore does only animated music video, not recording :-) Anaëlle M (talk) 16:50, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Spartaz: We've wikified this article (still in Anaëlle M's userspace). I'm still not 100% on notability, however, and wanted to know what you thought. I think an argument can be made for notability based on their video receiving Webby honoree (WP:WEBCRIT), along with an MTV interview of the studio founder (and an interview for French Channel 4), plus their general body of work (they've created videos for several notable artists). They're a "background" sort of studio, however, so there isn't an ideal amount of source material. Bms4880 (talk) 14:24, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh[edit]

Its pretty clear he is trying to flout the rules as flagrantly as possible as a giant finger. Might as well delete WP:CIVIL [1] (And PoD's addition there wasn't super nice either) Gaijin42 (talk) 15:02, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

nm, someone else got to him first on a DIFFERENT PA. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:26, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of Arbitration request[edit]

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Baiting and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:55, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Spartaz, in your arbitration statement, I suggest you delete the words after "This is turning into an unpleasant habit" and through to the end of the sentence. I understand the point you were trying to make, but Mark could (rightly) be upset or angry at being compared to a notorious, abusive sock master. Just a suggestion. Regards, AGK [•] 12:46, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have done this but are you going to ask any of the editors monstering me and calling for my head to tone it down too? I also definitely don't appreciate being dragged to arbitration by an editor who appears to make a habit of inserting himself into others' disputes - especially as I had nothing whatsoever to do with the current block. Thank you. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:07, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for striking that comment; I do feel it was an unfair comparison to make. I admit that I made a mistake by filing this request, but I will certainly do my best to avoid doing so again. I'm always open to constructive criticism of my decisions, and I respect your opinion greatly. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:47, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimate WP:BEANS Award[edit]

	Ultimate Beans award
	For this suggestion to open a patently silly RfC about the direction the sun rises. Hasteur (talk) 15:45, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Patently silly"? I am shocked, sir, shocked. Have any reputable modern astronomers ever seriously challenged Herodotus's report of the Egyptian records of the two times the sun rose in the west and the two times it set in the east? NebY (talk) 16:49, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Herodotus, the Wikipedian of his day. Always citing his sources, but never quite managing to stay focused enough to write a GA about the Persian Wars. Or about anything else, for that matter. The Scythians, they say one thing. The Persians, they say another thing. The Egyptians, they say all people in Ethiopia are nine feet tall. And good old Herodotus isn't going to say who he thinks is right, he's just conveying what his sources said with a total NPOV. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:13, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Why am I busy dissing a guy who died nearly 2500 years ago? No idea, sorry. I do find the comparison to Wikipedians interesting though.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:31, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What an excellent comparison! He has his POV too, of course - just hides it better. (Except of course that old favourite, the circumnavigation of Africa rejected for its one telling detail as if by an editor that, having been taught the compass points in school, just knows that can't be right.) Still, I love that modern archaeology suggests he knew a lot more about Scythians than his Victorian detractors ever guessed. NebY (talk) 14:48, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion for next time[edit]

Could I suggest that the next time you block Eric Corbett, or anyone, that you use the nice bright orange block notification to inform him? (That's the one they use when they block me.) He didn't seem to understand that he had been blocked or why, and the template is designed to indicate all that and what to do to appeal the block. Which reminds me: did Eric even request that he be unblocked? (Yes, I know there's something about "don't template the regulars" but using the template wouldn't have left any doubt in Eric's mind about whether he was blocked or not, or why.) --96.231.113.61 (talk) 17:22, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Eric was in any doubt but thanks for taking the time to feedback. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:20, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I knew I'd been blocked, it's pretty hard to miss. Eric Corbett 21:12, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Eric! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:26, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

REVDEL[edit]

Some more edits that needs to revdel: [2], [3], [4]. -- SMS ^Talk 13:06, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

and this old one [5] ? NebY (talk) 13:09, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done Thanks. Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:37, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Spartaz. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.— NebY (talk) 00:14, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Got it thanks Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:03, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Early close the DRV[edit]

Do it lol. I am frankly tired of Dream Focus, Warden and Cyclopia turning every AfD and DRV I participate in into a battleground, and of having to waste my time explaining why what they spout is inaccurate or irrelevant p b p 14:33, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And we're all tired of you as well, I assure you. Dream Focus 16:42, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Spartaz, you said "The nominator asked me", but it was pbp back that asked you, not Kww who was the nominator. They both say about the same thing most times, so its easy to get them confused. Doesn't really matter though, the outcome would've been the same no matter what. Dream Focus 16:42, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I object to being lumped in with PBP, and I object to the closing of the DRV. Hat off the childish sniping between Dream Focus and PBP, but the close was and remains invalid.—Kww(talk) 16:47, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well hopefully no one will try to restart it six or seven times hoping to get their way. Dream Focus 16:49, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of who is lumped in with who, I suppose it would be better to fix the DRV closure wording, at least? Pbp didn't nominate it. --cyclopia ^speak! 16:52, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting an invalid close ("per request of the nominator" when the nominator did not request) would be pretty reasonable. There's no clear consensus to support the prohibition on future AFDs, and I still want to see that stricken. I'm simply giving Spartaz a chance to correct his error rather than override his premature close. If you and PBP would behave yourselves, we would be able to discuss problematic articles without the discussions descending to these depths.—Kww(talk) 16:54, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, no reason to close this early. The AFD ran the full time, let the DRV run the full time too.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:55, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Kww, by now it should be pretty obvious that, no matter how much you or I disagree with the nomination being closed as keep, the DRV didn't have a prayer of going our way. I considered taking it to DRV myself, but didn't because I suspected that it would end up exactly the way it did. I only participated in the DRV because by the time I found out about it, some pretty ridiculous things had been said. Had I known my participation would result in Dream Focus, Cyclopia and Warden attacking contributions I made that had nothing to with the DRV or the most recent nomination, I might not have participated at all. I resent your comment that I "need to behave myself"; I'm just correcting attacks and misstatements leveled against me. p b p 16:56, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, many apologies to Spartaz for the endless bitching going on also on his talk page. That said, very briefly: Pbp, stop whining you're a victim. You're not. You're not being attacked anymore than you attack me. There are actually no attacks whatsoever, apart from your constant accusations of being attacked. --cyclopia ^speak! 17:15, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then how do you explain all the instances where you, Dream and Warden could have worded something impersonally, but instead leveled a comment against me directly? Or the time when Dream said I was going to renominate the AfD in response to a comment where I said that I was fine with none of the participants in this AfD renominating it? Heck, there's even one of those by Dream above! The three of you made this personal where you shouldn't, choosing to comment on me instead of the article or AfD. p b p 17:26, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You start this by calling out three of us by name, then whine that people are making it personal if they mention yours. Seriously, why do you keep dragging out this ridiculous playing the victim routine? Stop distorting things. Anyone can look at what was actually said. Dream Focus 17:32, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Spartaz, I'm concerned about this as well. Even though I (conditionally) endorsed Coffee's close, what bothers me is that tag-team disruptive editing has been rewarded by the early closure of a DRV in accordance with the disruptive editor's wishes, which seems badly amiss to me. I know Pbp has asked for the discussion to be closed but he wasn't alone! Even though I don't agree with KWW's position he deserves the full 168 hours to make his case. Please will you consider re-factoring the discussion to remove disruptive comments and re-opening the DRV? (Disruptive comments that should be removed do include the unjustified and off-topic insinuations about the Article Rescue Squadron.)—S Marshall T/C 17:38, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

a) It's been reopened, b) Which ARS comments? Kww, Warden, and I all made ARS comments, in that order chronologically p b p 17:45, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All of them. Whether or not you're right, DRV isn't the place to discuss perceived issues with the ARS and such discussions spark drama.—S Marshall T/C 17:49, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support the idea of early closing the DRV per WP:DEADHORSE, WP:LIGHTBULB, WP:NOTFORUM, WP:GOI, &c. Warden (talk) 17:40, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The close has been reverted. I'm sure Spartaz would appreciate it if we didn't darken this page further.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:47, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:56, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Florendo Visitacion[edit]

I see you closed this DRV as allowing recreation, and it seems to be a fine close. I notice however that you left {{tempundelete}} on the page. Did you intend to leave the history for the page undeleted so that it could be recreated directly from this history? Or should the page be deleted so that a fresher draft is mandated? Best, IronGargoyle (talk) 12:55, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have rolled it back to the last clean revision before deletion. Clearly this needs further improvement. Thanks for reminding me to clean up after myself. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:45, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hinduism and Jainism[edit]

As per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2013 November 2 I have created the article with minimal contents. This can serve as a ground where we can have discussion for further improvements. I also have a new userspace draft at User:The_Rahul_Jain/Jain-Hindu_relations2. The article is based on reliable secondary sources. I really think that the article can be improved with help of interested editors, but its being deleted on superficial grounds. I request permission to move the article (User:The_Rahul_Jain/Jain-Hindu_relations2) to main article space. Rahul Jain (talk) 10:40, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I must stress that most of the reviewers clearly said that the article must have a chance to go through AFD, but if you say that the material I have added, cannot be there at all, it would have no chance of getting discussed; even at AFD. This was not the consensus. Rahul Jain (talk) 11:47, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What came clearly through the discussion was that you had problems with POV and use of sources/OR. I'd suggest that rather then try to write the article yourself you would be better asking one of the india topic experts who contributed to the AFd/DRV to work with you to create the article. That way you have more chance of keeping your article and will also have the chance to learn better how we do things round here. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:58, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is a discussion regarding this at Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics#Article_on_Jain-Hindu_relations. If possible, can you provide your comments there? The article has not yet gone through AFD. The DRV was regarding speedy-deletion of the article and I think that the consensus was that no speedy-deletion criteria applied. There has been almost no discussion regarding the content of the article. I have used reliable sources and have only presented their opinion and facts. Rahul (talk) 05:51, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For me the most relevant commentry in the discussion that addresses was from S.Marshall who said:

herefore my view is that we should allow creation of an appropriate article on the topic, but we endorse the deletion of the content repeatedly added by The Rahul Jain, which has been removed a number of times now in varying forms. The message here for the Rahul Jain is: making minor changes and re-submitting this content with a different title will not work. We want an article on this subject, but we don't want this article on this subject.

Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:00, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If the article did not meet the speedy-deletion criteria, then why would it matter how many times have the article wrongly speedy-deleted in past? Rahul (talk) 17:41, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Katie Anderson[edit]

Hi Spartaz. Can you please unprotect this page so I may change it to a disambiguation between Keturah Anderson and Katie Anderson (actor)? Thanks.

Done Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:00, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Request for checkuser in SPI case[edit]

[6] JamesBWatson (talk) 11:20, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DRV for Kernow Positive Support?[edit]

Hi. At the start of October you closed this AfD as "Delete". The AfD only had one participant beside the nominator, and the article's creator, Davidtardis (talk · contribs) is frustrated at trying to get an article through Wikipedia policies (as demonstrated by comments on his talk page), having had it passed through the Articles for creation process once, speedy deleted per G11, sent back to AfC, passed again, sent to AfD and deleted again. I haven't seen the article myself so I've no idea if it's notable or not, but just following its route through our process suggests there's no general consensus. Do you think it's worth sending this to a deletion review? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:58, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ritchie333 Thank you for raising this matter. As it stands[7] it probably doesn't reach the GNG guidelines but it is not far off. However, I guess with a push we could get it through.[8] Surprisingly, the BBC stuff looks rather close to press releases but people outside the charity are also being quoted. Whatever the merits of the organisation and the article, I feel really bad about the way the system treats editors in this situation. No one's fault in particular but they really get a battering. If I was recreating it I'd avoid AFC (although AFC hasn't been blocking in this case). Thincat (talk) 14:04, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, the Flying Dutchman is on his way round again and has now reached here. Thincat (talk) 14:43, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The content looks just shy of the inclusion bar and I agree the BBC article looks very press releasish. As its in a local news section maybe they were short of content that day? The sourcing doesn't look any better then it did before but I'm not averse to re-running the Afd if we can get some more sourcing to look at. Note that DGG doesn't generally do careless nominations and I'd be astonished if DRV decided to overturn this one. A relist if you asked is possible but you are more likely to get a positive response at AFD by improving the sources first. Very happy to userfy this for someone. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:58, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the BBC was short of news on several days! Yes, I saw DGG did the AfD nomination and I'm sure he was being careful. FWIW at any DRV I would endorse the AfD but say I would have preferred a relist (after which it would have gone on to be deleted). Thincat (talk) 18:36, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I would have expected a relist too - the frustrating thing about the AfD is it doesn't discuss any sources and very little context is given other than "just a local organisation" which makes it difficult to see in retrospect what the specific rationales for deletion were. In terms of sources, I can see mentions in the Terence Higgins Trust and NHS South West, both reliable sources but neither really indicating anything more than the organisation exists. I can't find any news or book hits beyond what Thincat already provided, but the BBC have covered them regularly over a period of eight years, which lends more credence to notability. (There is also a mention in the Sunday People, but if I cite that in the article then John and Hillbillyholiday will pop round to my house just so they can both kick me up the backside.) Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:00, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bearing in mind that these days I only close AFDs when there is a significant backlog I suspect that this would have precluded me from doing the relist and while we can all agree that the consensus was a thin one, I'm not seeing something yet that would make this a certain keep if we went back to AFD, Relisting content we all agree is marginal when AFD is struggling to process the content already going through it does not strike me as a good use of the available resource. I trust you know me well enough to know that I will overturn the AFD or relist if something that undoubtedly gets this over the bar gets brought to my attention. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:54, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I think for now the best option is to leave the draft now sitting in AfC and see what happens to it there. If I get time, I will add some of the sources as mentioned above. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:23, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Li (surname), etc.[edit]

Thanks for the close - we seem to have reached loggerheads! I've started an RFC at Talk:Li (surname)#RFC regarding multiple Chinese surnames transliterated to the same surname in English per your suggestion - I hope that this gets somewhere without deteriorating the way it has previously! WP:TNT is the best option now in my opinion! --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:06, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Surely the best way forward is to calmly discuss the content without preconceptions and without implying that the contributions of others' are worthless. My experience is that that isn't the best way to garner support around a consensus. Cheers. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:57, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, it's been like that from the outset - my WP:COMPETENCE was brought into question really early on. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:18, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Important Notice: Your 2013 Arbitration Committee Election vote[edit]

Greetings. Because you have already cast a vote for the 2013 Arbitration Committee Elections, I regret to inform you that due to a misconfiguration of the SecurePoll we've been forced to strike all votes and reset voting. This notice is to inform you that you will need to vote again if you want to be counted in the poll. The new poll is located at this link. You do not have to perform any additional actions other than voting again. If you have any questions, please direct them at the election commissioners. --For the Election Commissioners, v/r, TParis

File:Icarly-logo-2.png[edit]

There is no consensus on deleting the SVG file, is there? --George Ho (talk) 23:29, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't see consensus for anything there. What a mess of a discussion. Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:32, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Precious again[edit]

sufficient robustness
Thank you for thoughtful deletions of articles and keeps of people, including yourself after a break, especially for your constructive comments at RfAs, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:58, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A year ago, you were the 326th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:24, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Library Survey[edit]

As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi^{t | c} 15:43, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

speedy deletion of Kalara International Properties[edit]

I have been approached about the deletion of Kalara International Properties on October 19. Apparently this was a speedy deletion for "Unambiguous advertising or promotion" but he points to other similar articles in Category:Real estate companies of Thailand and notes others which are little different, and have fewer citations; even those with lots of citations are purely promotional and advertising in nature. There was no AfD for this cited, so I assume it was a speedy deletion and happened rapidly. From what I am told, sufficient third-party citations were provided as references, the article was conscientiously written in a neutral tone, and that WP:N for corporations includes the winning of awards and notable projects, and mentions in third party publications including trade and industry and regional publications. Apparently this company itself won important development association awards itself, as did some of its projects. As an editor who's seen lots of corporate articles (I could give you a long list) that don't have much content in them and sometimes only have the company's own site as a citation, and no third party references, how do you just a speedy deletion. Did you consult WP:Companies guidelines or ask at WP:Thailand about whether it was notable company or not? Forgive me for being prolix, I'm known for being long-winded.Skookum1 (talk) 06:53, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see any on-wiki communication with you about this matter so can I ask who contacted you and how? Their description of the article was unfortunately short of the mark as the text was clearly promotional and couldn't be rescued without a total rewrite. You might also benefit from reading WP:WAX. It also appears that you are not aware that the vast majority of deletions are CSD and admins are not required to consult wikiprojects for permission to undertake the removal of promotional or otherwise unsuitable text from the project. Indeed the whole point of CSD is that it has very little process. I do not doubt your assertion that the subject is notable but that isn't the point of WP:CSD#G11 and sometimes a dose of WP:TNT is necessary to clear the way. You are very welcome to write a new article that is based on sources and without promotional text and this will not be subject to a G11. Regards, Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:35, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Drv#Isabella_Soprano[edit]

Hello Spartaz. I saw your note on the DRV. I was hoping you were from OTRS. But looking at your talk I suppose not. Cheers, Dloh cierekim 04:36, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not anymore - I used to be though and I'm familiar with this kind of deletion. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:57, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. Dloh cierekim 07:59, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lemme know. Daniel (talk) 10:05, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect. thanks. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:54, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is it worth setting up an edit filter to stop the name going back in? (Is that allowed by policy/technically possible? The edit filter is something I know bugger all about.) Daniel (talk) 08:14, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly. King of Hearts knows about filters. I'll ask him about it after Xmas. Cheers. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:26, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jahia Page[edit]

Thank you for your message. I am fairly new in the process of recreating a page that has been deleted. Am I authorized to delete the actual banner here? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jahia My guess is yes but I just want to do it right. I am still thinking about your proposal of using the old article as a template. Could be a good idea though.

FYI, I am writing you this message after your message found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2013_December_6

Thanks again :) Puda (talk) 17:46, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to bother again but I am more flexible this week ;) Puda (talk) 22:23, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, just remove the tag and start writing but there isn't much in the history. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:37, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Yes, I think I need to do a complete rewrite. Puda (talk) 09:26, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CloudKade11[edit]

This user CloudKade11 has been reverting my redirects, looking at his edit war block, he stated that agreed to the following statement by you "It means that you agree not to revert anything more than once and not to redo an edit if its reverted." He has broken that rule. He does not understand that former X Factor contestants Restless Road has not established notability outside the contest. (TW) --Miss X-Factor (talk) 23:35, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The last time I reverted was yesterday around noon and I haven't done so since. I don't understand why you're waiting until now when it's almost 2 days later to making an issue over it? I told you I was going to work on the article and even placed a template to let users know it was under construction. CloudKade11 (talk) 06:19, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of SSL certificates for web servers[edit]

There was clearly no consensus at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2013_December_11, so why did you endorse close it? zazpot (talk) 00:00, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously I saw a consensus to endorse otherwise I wouldn't have called it. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:08, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- On what basis? You did not transparently explain how the decision was reached. Since there was not unanimity, and there were good arguments against endorse closing, judging by Wikipedia:Consensus#Determining_consensus, there was no consensus. zazpot (talk) 21:02, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - There clearly was no consensus to overturn so whatever outcome you won't get the article back. There was a clear majority to endorse and the overturn arguments were not strong enough for me to overlook the endorse votes. You really do need to drop the stick… Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:11, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Without a consensus in the DRV to the effect that the AfD reached a valid conclusion, the AfD must not stand. Otherwise the process is bunk. (I.e. to suggest, as you have done above, that the DRV needs to reach a consensus to overturn in order for the article to be restored, is to treat the DRV as AfD round two.) So, please reconsider your decision to close the DRV and to delete the article. Thank you. zazpot (talk) 03:00, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - It doesn't work the way you want it too. There was consensus in both AFD and DRV and saying that there wasn't doesn't make it so. You have exhausted your options so need to go find something else to work on. Your only option is to go find some decent sources. Further arguing the toss will get you nowhere. Have you read WP:RS and WP:GNG to understand what passes for a reliable source here? Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:26, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Noizy OTR[edit]

Can you give me a reason why you deleted page Noizy, that I'd created yesterday ? --Eni.Sukthi.Durres (talk) 10:57, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly the community has decided in a deletion discussion that he isn't notable for an article and your article didn't have any reliable sources to overcome that. Second, the subjects importance wasn't stated in the article. Either reason would have been enough. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:38, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But I created based on his compatriots singers reliable sources, one of them is Çiljeta, this article has same reliable sources and references--Eni.Sukthi.Durres (talk) 22:58, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's just as bad so I have nominated it for deletion. Perhaps it might help you to read our general inclusion guideline and if you can find some decent reliable sources we can look at this again. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:22, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Spartaz, first let me applaud your sense of irony of putting "Humbug" in your name on the 24th of December, that IS hilarious! Second, I think that if you want to play Ebenezer Scrooge and delete Ciljeta, probably do so after Christmass, in the meantime I improved her article and made a comment on the deletion nomination. Hopefully they will suffice to keep her. A note on Noizy: If Noizy has been deleted 5 times, there must be a good reason, but if Eni wants to write that article well, he needs to get the article to notability standards. Happy holidays! --Asgjestefalihuaji (talk) 18:24, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My signature hasn't changed since late 2006. Find sources and your problems melt away.... Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:33, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

December 2013[edit]

Your recent editing history at Wikipedia:Notability (people) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You've hit 3RR also and are just as guilty of edit warring. All it takes is another person to revert you. Morbidthoughts (talk) 06:23, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

3RR warning[edit]

Hello! I see that you have made the same edit three times at Wikipedia:Notability (people). I have reverted your latest edit, and this is your 3RR warning to avoid edit warring. Since this change was the subject of extensive discussion, and since you were an active participant in that discussion, surely you can see it would be better for someone other than you to determine the consensus and make any necessary changes. And there is no reason NOT to wait for such a closure, rather than insisting on making the change now. If you are correct that consensus is clear and favors the change you wish, then the ultimate result will be to your liking - and the process of reaching that result will have been clean and non-controversial. --MelanieN (talk) 06:30, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I see that while I was writing this, User:Morbidthoughts was writing you a similar note. --MelanieN (talk) 06:31, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've also reported this to ANI, asking for an independent admin to determine whether there is actually consensus to change PORNBIO. Morbidthoughts (talk) 06:34, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your suppression of List of quadratic irrational numbers set in a systematic order (in the Deletion review)[edit]

Are you a mathematician? By the way, Wikipedia can also get sued for a copyright violation of mathematical sources, if it sticks to much to them. I even mentioned explicitly this further source [3] which was completely ignored in the discussion rest. And now this detailed argument from me was not anymore possible due to your sudden closing:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2013_December_17&diff=587996190&oldid=587622063

There was also NO mathematical expert statement in this Deletion review so please reopen it. Thank you. --MathLine (talk) 04:54, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should read this essay. It applies to this situation and we don't refashion the way wikipedia works just because someone doesn't like the outcome of a discussion. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:52, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, then please restore the page in my name space. Thank you. --MathLine (talk) 21:11, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why Was the Datari Turner Page deleted?[edit]

Was wondering if you would mind telling me why you deleted it and how I can go about getting it left up if I have put up again? It is a legit page, a legit person with legit content. Any information would be greatly appreciated as I am new to the world of Wiki. Thank you for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DutchWTW (talk • contribs) 22:49, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The subject of the article is barely notable (if at all) and they requested the deletion of the article - which is possible under our biographies of living people rules in these circumstances. Until the subject reaches a level of unquestionable notability we will be complying with their wishes. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:54, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am a part of Datari Turner's PR team and he produced 13 movies in 2013 and has 8 more in the pipeline. We would like the block lifted on his name. We would like to establish a Wiki page for Datari. Now that you have been informed of this request, can we begin creating his page? If there is a higher level process to achieve this goal, please link me to it. Again, thank you for your quick response and time. Happy New Year! — Preceding unsigned comment added by DutchWTW (talk • contribs) 23:04, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:COI & WP:NOTADVERT are relevent here & you don't get to manage your own article anyway. I'm afraid that we can't take random users assurances to overcome a deletion based on a BLP request. WP:DRV is unlikely to give you any relief. I suppose you can write to WP:OTRS but I doubt you will get much sympathy there either. Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:13, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Why do you seem to take pleasure in providing bad news? Almost as if its personal... The vibe I am getting is that you arent trying help get a page up, rather hold it back from being created. Would you like to speak to Datari Directly? I can arrange that if that would take me out of the random user box.... Looking for a little help here. It isnt 2011 any more. Its 2014 and he would like to have a Wiki page. If you found the time to delete it within hours of its creation, maybe you have a vested interest of his page not existing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DutchWTW (talk • contribs) 23:22, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Did you read the links I provided? I would have thought a professional PR might have been able to get their point across without casting aspersions in the direction of the person they are asking to help. I suggest you get the subject to write to WP:OTRS as nothing can be done until we have independently verified the subject no longer requests deletion. Even if we do get to that point you will not be permitted to write the content or control what is said. Wikipedia is not free advertising and you pretty much lost me when you made it clear that your object is to use my volunteer unpaid time to promote your client. Goodbye. Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:36, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - I didnt write the article and to be honest I am not familiar with wiki rules or regulations. I just know that you were the person who deleted it 3 years ago when a request was put in based on lies and unprovable information continuously being left on the page. Then someone does a page for him and rightfully so, because if you seen his IMDB you would see he is deserving. A fan sends us a link and the next day it is deleted. Where is the harm or foul in that? I will send in the letter to the link you left. But being that you are a volunteer, just wanted to thank you for spending hours of your life grinding away on this great and resourceful tool better known as Wiki! Always a learning a process. Thanks for your unbiased and helpful responses.

Big D (Kuwaiti_rapper)[edit]

This is absolutely ridiculous man. What is wrong with you admins? I been nice and humble and respectful with you admins for 3 years and all I got in return are deleted articles for 3 years you people having been deleting my article regardless to how legit and notable it grows. I mean truthfully I like to read your point of view 3 YEARS of people battling you admins to get a acceptance what to do you have to be for a Wikipedia article "a God?" to be accepted in Wikipedia? I have news articles about me in the reference, I have a million views in a country that has a 3.25 million population, I have tours, concerts, shows, and a associated single with a well known rap artist Young Noble what is this? People with lame articles dry/non-important/ and non-useful to the world get accepted whereas Kuwait's most credible Hip Hop artist to date does not? This is making me start to dislike Wikipedia because the admins clearly mistake what is important and what is not. The article that was written about me should be restored because it was completely legitimate! Man do me a favor and reconsider, you do not know how hard and how long people have worked to have my article developed it was expected for it to be restored not deleted.

Have you read the policies on conflicts of interest and the General Inclusion Guideline? WP:COI & WP:GNG. . We need two decent secondary sources. IMDB isn't it. See WP:RS. I get you aren't happy but try looking at it from our perspective. We have to have an inclusion standard otherwise there would be no standard at all. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:15, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Still Sir, I repeat have a look at Kuwaiti Rapper Promotes Positive Message", and Exclusive - Big D on injustice, racism and Kuwait’s hip hop scene – A candid interview" and - Kuwait Underground Tour performed in Camp Arifjan if you go to Young_Noble_discography in the (Guest Appearances Section) you'll see me and him made a song entitled "Second Chance" Young Noble is an American rapper. Best known for being part of a rap group 2pac originated entitled Outlawz they are very famous worldwide. Plus I was featured in Al-Watan, RK_FM, Performed alongside with DJ Smallz, and I have over a million views in YouTube, and my old album had 12,054 views 1,105 streams 4,810 downloads 40 - 5 Star Ratings on DatPiff" I obtained a strong reputation with my aspirations of bringing world wide acclaim to Hip Hop in the Middle East I truthfully stand as Kuwait's most credible Hip Hop artist to date. I believe my article had proper sources and was notable and if it was not, then I would like to know what else more would Wikipedia require and I shall get it done. Although I strongly believe I already have enough notability in which Wikipedia requires. It is not fair other dull articles get a spot in Wikipedia and Kuwait's number one Hip Hop artist does not. Help me by reconsidering, it has been 3 years of not being accepted or tell me what else I can do to be accepted I have no clue how to use Wikipedia or all the gizmo's and gadgets inside of it, ALL I know is I read the rules and my article fulfilled most of the requirements. I await for you to shed some light onto this situation. Regards, Big D — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.40.147.17 (talk) 13:30, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't we look at all of that in the DRV? IIRC the consensus was that only one was a RS and that isn't quite enough to get you over the bar. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:17, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please inform me what I require as a reliable source give me a target of a reliable source to add onto the article for it to be accepted and I will get it done.

The best description is in the GNG link. If you want to test a source you can ask for feedback from the reliable sources noticeboard. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:49, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Spartaz Deleting my article from Wikpedia brought bad news to people about Wikipedia http://www.dailydot.com/lifestyle/deletionpedia-wikipedia-deleted-articles/ according to The Daily Dot the hometown newspaper of the World Wide Web, in the last paragraphs of the article you can see they mentioned me because I was considered not notable. Then why would the news write about me if I wasn't notable and well known? I have never even contacted them just found this on google. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.39.76.56 (talk) 11:10, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Userfication[edit]

Hello.. I would like to request an userfication of the article named "Veeam" to my userspace at "User:BiH/Veeam" for article improvement and reference addition. Thank you. --BiH (talk) 15:32, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done Please bring this to DRV if you wish to consider restoring this. Thanks. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:54, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

HW's Talk page[edit]

I wouldn't think of edit warring on HW's Talk page, but I made an additional comment that was pertinent to the communication. I guess I should have made another new entry relating to the other article I made edits. Plus, don't you think with 700+ entries on his Talk page that its a bit out of character to exclude my comment? But as you say, its his page to do with as he likes. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 22:09, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed it is. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:17, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm glad that you agree... :) --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 22:21, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rousseau Metal[edit]

Spartaz - This post might count as wanting to have Rousseau Metal restored to mainspace per the close at Rousseau Metal DRV. Seems reasonable to move it to main space and let process handle it. -- Jreferee (talk) 04:42, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll wait for a direct request, This will go to AFD and get deleted and I want tp be sure the user wants that. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:51, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a moment[edit]

Hi, Spartaz! Sitting in the airport lounge after a long-awaited two week retreat during which I had extremely limited internet access. Looking at my talk page, I noticed a message from User:Bilby alerting me to [this message] left on a talk archive page. On reviewing your contribution, I'm as much in the dark as ever. Obviously, the unblock review is unimportant, but if you have a moment to expand on your comments, it would be helpful. Thanks! --Pete (talk) 01:38, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have nothing further to add. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:50, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. You spoke of a limit, and it is in my mind that if there are limits being set, then they should be clearly articulated for the guidance of all. Not much use establishing rules that are unclear or unknown, is there? I thought I'd ask for your input before seeking that of others, perhaps at WT:BAN. Your contributions are welcome, but if you don't wish to participate, that's fine too. --Pete (talk) 18:51, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Darko Nikač[edit]

You deleted this article based on the results of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miloš Dragojević. However Darko Nikač was capped by Montenegro (coming on in the 78th minute) again Luxembourg. [9]. Can you undelete? Nfitz (talk) 04:14, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:47, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Berkeley Hall School[edit]

Hi Spartaz, my deletion review was closed by you & recreation was permitted, should I create the article again directly on it's page or do I have to create a draft at my user page then move it to article space. Thanks Azakeri (talk) 23:07, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't this redirected? You can just undo that if it was. You can't move something over the top of existing material so I'd just start off in article space if it was me. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:40, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your reply, Yes it is was redirected but I am not sure how to undo the redirection, can you please assist me? Azakeri (talk) 06:19, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Done Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:15, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:ARMY101 and signatures[edit]

I noticed the apparent discrepancy in signatures, in fact the user was renamed last night, so it's a signature from before the rename - [10] --86.5.93.42 (talk) 11:05, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I worked that out but they are still posting with the Army Signature so they need to change that. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:07, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well the edit you point out (and their last edit) was 18 Jan 19:59, the rename happened as few hours later 18 Jan 23:27, so not sure if they will or won't be posting with their Army signature (it looks to be a default signature rather than custom, so I assume it'll change automatically). I can see it'll get confusing using both in the same discussion, but I guess that's a "common" problem from renames. --86.5.93.42 (talk) 11:14, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

YGM...[edit]

For better or worse. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:24, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mathsci[edit]

I was frankly surprised that you chose to restore Mathsci's access to his talk page. I was not particularly happy with the responses you quoted. Mathsci attempted to insert himself by proxy into a discussion over an article I had only just created, and in the context of a dispute we had last year in which I found his behaviour so uncollegial that I withdrew from editing for a while. I find that disturbing. His choosing to frame his response in terms of his having been responding to "clear problems with the editing of particular articles" and "something horrendous is going on". In other words, he is continuing to denigrate me and my edits in exactly the same way he did last April (see the diffs in my report at WP:AN for examples). I am not happy with that.

My understanding is that Mathsci is site-banned and that as such he should edit his talk page only for the purpose of appealing his ban. Instead I see that within a few minutes of your restoring his access, he has edited the page again, in a substantial way. He has removed comments by myself, himself and discussions between other editors in a way which shows clearly that he views himself as free to edit his page in any way that an editor in good standing would do -- which is not consistent with the understanding he claims to have of his status as site-banned. Is that what you intended when you restored his access? Deltahedron (talk) 18:23, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mathsci removed some posts but kept the latest action visible at User talk:Mathsci#Restoring Talk Page Access. This looks OK to me. EdJohnston (talk) 20:44, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having difficulty seeing what's "OK" here. Is it really OK for a site-banned user to be violating the terms of Wikipedia:Banning policy (which are An editor who is site-banned is forbidden from making any edit, anywhere on Wikipedia, via any account or as an unregistered user, under any and all circumstances. The only exception is that editors with talk page access may appeal in accordance with the provisions below.)? Is it really OK for him to continue a campaign of incivility towards me even in the emails that in which he promises to abide by the terms of policy? Is it really OK for him to violate the terms he has agreed to within 25 minutes of his request being granted? Is it OK for the requests of a user who has been completely ejected from the project to be given special, non-policy, consideration over the concerns of a user who is feeling increasingly concerned by the continuation on- and off-wiki of a grudge held by a user banned for harassment? Deltahedron (talk) 21:04, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've had my say. In the grand scheme of things, I don't care enough to lose any sleep over it. I don't like Mathsci's attitude to me or other mathematics editors, and I can't fathom why he is given so much leeway, but at the end of the day I'll carry on trying to build good quality content and do my best not to care what he says or does. Block his talk page and email access or not, I don't have to read it. Deltahedron (talk) 21:13, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed you don't and it would probably improve your experience if you take his page off your watchlist. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:45, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And Mathsci is back to editing his talk page to provide advice on editing articles. It's pretty clear he doesn't "get it", as you hoped. I can't imagine any reason to give him access to his talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.191.241.59 (talk) 14:33, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have just noticed this too. It is fair to say that User:YohanN7 had asked him a question, but it seems clear that Mathsci is violating the terms of his ban, which is that he should edit his talk page only for the purpose of appealing his ban. I leave it up to you decide whether his comments are consistent with the assurances quoted here. Deltahedron (talk) 20:23, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I find the special treatment that Mathsci continues to receive absolutely appalling. The rules are perfectly clear: banned users have the right to appeal only, not to use their talk page to advise or socialise. Once again there appear to be unwritten exceptions to policy that apply to Mathsci. That kind of reward for politicking (and disregard for the rules that are meant to make the project safe and welcoming for newcomers) is the reason I gave up regular editing. Perhaps I'm the only editor he (and his admin enablers) has driven away, but I suspect the reason he gets into so many fights with trolls is that they're the only ones who aren't driven away entirely by his pompous entitlement and consistent incivility. Defunct editor (talk) 05:37, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Long Island Exchange[edit]

I found these comments rather difficult to understand. Surely if the original deletion was incorrect then the default should be to restore? And in this case which of four deletions do you consider to be the original!? Also what is CCC in this context?

More importantly, you say "relist" - are you going to do that? Or may I just delete it and protect it again? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:02, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing wrong with the add. I don't read a consensus to overturn but d g g, who I respect a great deal, has asked for a relist to test the interest in setting aside the gng for this article. I don't think that is unreasonable but I ran out of time to do that. By all means delete it and I'll sort out the relist when I next have time. Sorry for any confusion. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:16, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Isabella Soprano for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Isabella Soprano 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/Isabella Soprano (2nd nomination) 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 notice from the top of the article. ukexpat (talk) 21:27, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey... basically the stuff here. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ADeletion_review%2FLog%2F2014_February_20&action=historysubmit&diff=597553607&oldid=597532539 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.50.78.21 (talk) 20:09, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

request for page protection[edit]

Thank you for your input at the Brendon VILLEGAS edit war/content dispute area The same edit war/content dispute is going on at the Rachel Reilly article

link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rachel_Reilly

link: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rachel_Reilly&action=history

I would like to request you place the same sort of protection to this article so that a discussion can be forced where we hopefully come to some consensus or compromise.

thanks,

ciao!

Carriearchdale (talk) 16:36, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Terminal (band)[edit]

The article Terminal (band) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable; their one album barely charted and none of the sources appear to give any substantial information of anything else notable.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Invisiboy42293 (talk) 16:13, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Terminal (band) for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Terminal (band) 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/Terminal (band) (2nd nomination) 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 notice from the top of the article. Invisiboy42293 (talk) 20:56, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi[edit]

Hello, Spartaz. You have new messages at Crosstemplejay's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Deletion of 2013 Cyprus Cup squads[edit]

You apparently made the decision to delete 2013 Cyprus Cup squads despite the fact that the discussion was, in fact, evenly divided and came to no consensus. I find your decision incorrect and arbitrary and request to have it reviewed. Smallchief (talk 20:13, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) I disagree, it was the correct decision. Smallchief (talk · contribs)'s arguments were based on WP:ILIKEIT and WP:INTERESTING as mentioned in the AfD, so there is no need to repeat it all again here. JMHamo (talk) 20:28, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please can Smallchief describe the policy his arguments to keep the article were based on? Essentially I'm seeing 3 policy based votes to delete and 2 assertions that are not backed by reference to policy or sources. If you can clarify this it makes any review more liable to change. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:34, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I've ever seen a deletion described as a consensus when it is 3 to 2. That's not a consensus.

With regard to the argument, I have always thought that common sense, fairness, and improving wikipedia were more important than rummaging around to come up with an alphabet soup of "policy." This is not a courtroom; wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It's supposed to convey reliable information on notable topics to readers.

Nobody has challenged the reliability of the information in the deleted article. There is no doubt that the Cyprus Cup is a notable women's international soccer tournament. The National women's soccer teams of England and France were there along with the national teams of ten other countries. There is no doubt that the participants in this tournament included many of the best women soccer players in the world. It seems appropriate to have all together in one place a list of the participants in this tournament.

The creator of this article should get a pat on the back for putting in a lot of work to produce a useful article. Instead he gets dissed. The old saying also applies to wikipedia: "Good deeds never go unpunished."

Let's look at another implication of what you have done. There are at least half a dozen other wikipedia articles identical in format and purpose to this one. One I will mention is the 2009 CONCACAF Beach Soccer Championship squads. Should that article and all others of this ilk be deleted? Is it fair to delete 2014 Cyprus Cup squads while other articles of the same format and purpose about less-prominent sports and tournaments continue to exist on wikipedia? Will you take immediate action to ensure that all these articles are purged from wikipedia?

By the way, I didn't write, edit, or contribute to the article under review.Smallchief (talk 02:25, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2009 CONCACAF Beach Soccer Championship squads has been sent to AfD. Please let me know if you spot similar articles on my Talk page. JMHamo (talk) 13:55, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For Spartaz: You have opened up Pandora's Box with your hasty decision to delete 2013 Cyprus Cup squads. Please reconsider or submit your decision to higher authority. Should every wikipedia article of every sporting tournament which lists the names of team members be deleted. You've set that precedent. Are you sure that's what you wanted to do? Smallchief (talk 15:05, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you want me to review this deletion you really are going to have to reference the policy that supports your argument to keep as I'm not seeing it. As far as I can see, the delete site cited policy with mentions of WP:NOT and also the fact that this information does not appear to be collectively notable because there are no sources to discuss the squads collectively in this way. In fact, you seem to acknowledge this in your comment that the information cannot be found elsewhere - which kinda suggests that this is synthetic original research. Any one of these three would be a solid policy based reason to delete and I'm afraid that the policy base for your vote eludes me. It would really help you if you could fill that gap. Rough Consensus does not involve counting votes but by assessing arguments against policy. This means that votes not based on a policy have much less weight in the close then those based firmly on a site policy. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:49, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should base your decisions more on the overriding policy of Wikipedia: common sense. A crabbed philosophy does not contribute to the achievement of Wikipedia's goals.Smallchief (talk 01:38, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, so you don't have any policy behind your argument. That clarifies matters somewhat. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:57, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To quote Wikipedia: "Why isn't "use common sense" an official policy? It doesn't need to be; as a fundamental principle, it is above any policy." Smallchief (talk 08:04, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Canvassing[edit]

In regards to the canvassing, it was an outreach for the opinions from members of the porn project. I was confused specifically about this which states stated Xbiz is a RS with no further information. I tried to leave neutral messages for unbiased opinions, my concern at the time, was due to the lack of response from members of the wikiproject. I have no editorial history with any of the editors and found all of them here (went down the list). I tried my best to stay neutral in asking for opinions regarding clarifications on RS in the porn industry and understand how some may believe there is inherent bias using this procedure (which should be avoided), but that was not my intent whatsoever. I apologize for any misunderstanding or confusion this might have carried. Thanks :) Valoem ^talk 13:38, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

4 Hutton Center[edit]

Hello! Shortly after you deleted this article, somebody recreated the talk page. Want to take a look? Thanks. MelanieN (talk) 19:33, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up, Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:40, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The F1 Show[edit]

Hi Spartaz. You recently closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The F1 Show and then deleted The F1 Show and redirected Talk:The F1 Show‎ to Sky Sports F1#Programming. Was that what you meant to do? Or did you mean to delete the talk page, and redirect the article? (I'm pretty sure that's what you meant to do, but I thought I'd check). Regards. DH85868993 (talk) 00:12, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That was what I intended to do. The deleted content wasn't going to be merged and didn't meet the GNG. Spartaz ^Humbug! 00:30, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kosovo on Russia and Ukraine maps[edit]

Hi Spartaz,

Thank you for closing the RfC. You mentioned the Kosovo issue on the map, but that's only on the Russia map, not the Ukraine one. That said, I'd love to get some help getting the ball rolling on changing the Russia map. An admin on Commons reverted my revert and locked the map so it cannot be changed. I messaged them here, but have not heard back. I also started a request on the Graphics Lab here, but no reply yet. Having an admin behind this might get a reply from Denniss sooner. I understand if you're not interested in doing this, but thought I'd ask. Cheers! EvergreenFir (talk) 21:56, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am so unpopular on commons that I suspect that my involvement would be the opposite of helping. Is there any reason why we can't keep a local copy of the image on our article if commons doesn't want to play? Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:07, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Double closure[edit]

Hi Spartaz: Another user closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Coffee prior to your closure, and there are presently two closes for the same AfD discussion. Just a heads up. Cheers, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:08, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

LOL thanks. I have rolled myself back.... Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:14, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the prompt reply. Cheers, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:03, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for closing the Ukraine RfC[edit]

Cheers for getting onto evaluating the consensus so promptly.

As an aside, would it be possible/appropriate to copy-paste the section added from [11] to [12] and append it to Population, Area, etc. figures in Box and in text? I made an error in judgement by adding it there instead of relating it to what should be the next step after introducing the disputed region map. Rather than further protracted arguments and potential edit warring, it would be useful to demonstrate that breaking up the statistics is in line with Wikipedia policy and guidelines. I'd consider it to be invaluable to clarify that decisions aren't made by Russophile vs Ukrainophile camps (or visa versa). In that way, I can also leave a note on the corresponding Russia article talk page pointing them to neutral evaluations, as they've also been to and fro-ing on stats in their infobox. Thanks, in advance, for any advice you're prepared to provide! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:31, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:TenPoundHammer[edit]

I didn't mean literally delete my userpage, silly. April Fool's Day joke. Unless your deletion was itself an April Fools' joke… can you please restore it? Thanks. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 06:47, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@TenPoundHammer: seems like it isn't the first time. When will you learn! ansh666 06:59, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Its the same every year. At least this year he only tagged one page in mainspace with a deletion tag or I would have blocked him for disruption too. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:01, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Geez, who pissed in your Wheaties? You know this shit goes on every April Fools' Day, and you're like the only admin who sees it as "disruption". I actually got false-blocked for it once, with multiple admins agreeing that blocking me for April Fools' pranks was out of line. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 07:31, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I guess we need to agree to differ on this, but I bet I'm not the only one tired of all the April fools day nonsense. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:39, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I still think there are better ways to express your dislike of it than by mass-deleting every prank nomination with a summary of "grow up" and calling all prankers "children". Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 07:40, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't an expression of dislike, that was an action to remove disruption. By the way, did you just use rollback on me? [13] Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:42, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's only "disruption" if it makes it onto article space, as WP:APRIL says. I rolled you back because joke nom or not, there was no reason to remove those. If you have an axe to grind about these "disruptive" April Fools' noms, take it somewhere else such as ANI. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 07:51, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You abused rollback there TPH, I suggest you step back and think about whether you have gone too far there? Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:53, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So, hey, I noticed one of your edit summaries[edit]

And while it's all well and good you ~~don't like~~ are reverting some of the activities that April Fool's culminates in here, calling people "children" for it, to me feels like it's bordering on incivility. I admit I may or may not kinda suck at properly identifying this kind of thing, so feel free to remove this or staunchly disagree with my stance. It was just bothering me and I felt the need to tell you. Thanks. - Purplewowies (talk) 07:06, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Report me to ANI then. I used the world children to remove joke tags on serious pages. It was childish to tag the pages. If you don't like the cap don't behave like a child. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:07, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Meh, my first sentence was harsh there and I had just come back to change it, but you beat me to the punch and replied. I simply came to you in good faith because "children" as a summary felt somewhat insulting (and no, you haven't reverted anything of mine that way, I was just wandering a history page and saw it). I guess I do see where you're coming from, even as I personally would use "childish" to describe the editing as opposed to "children" which I guess to me felt like it was commenting on the contributors instead of their actions? (Which was why I brought it up, and, well, now I've gotten circular.) - Purplewowies (talk) 07:14, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

maybe if any of it was actually funny, and not just bad cliches and making a mess when given the slightest of pretexts... Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 07:20, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Notability in the English Wikipedia[edit]

(Note that the AFD nom is for an encyclopedia article and not the policy page.)

So, it's getting late here, and I should probably get off soon lest I run into WP:competence issues due to tiredness, but as it appeared that 1.5 to 2 out of the 3 people discussing (one being myself, obviously) appeared to actually be serious, was an early close (even before the end of 4/1) actually appropriate? I understand it may have opened as a joke, but it appeared to be taking a turn for the actual serious. Like my previous thread on this page, I might suck at judging this stuff (and this time, I may actually be running into the aformentioned competence issues), so feel more than free to staunchly disagree or even remove this thread without comment. - Purplewowies (talk) 08:11, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I believe we actually did do this discussion before and there was no challenge this time round to the third party sourcing found in the article. I think any serious discussion should be starting from the position of analyzing those sources and whatever else is out there. From an admin's point of view, how could the closer possibly sift through a discussion started as a joke to work out which arguments are serious and which are jokey? Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:18, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notice[edit]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Potential abuse of power. Thank you. NealCruco (talk) 17:51, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[edit]

Hello, Spartaz. You have new messages at Talpatra's talk page.
Message added 18:17, 2 April 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Talpatra (talk) 18:17, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

	The Admin's Barnstar
	For being a Great Administrator! You have been a true gentleman, Helpful and very Kind. Thank you. Talpatra (talk) 07:13, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

thank you. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:31, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A quick heads-up[edit]

Our good friend Erpert is complaining that someone he won't name is "bothering" him, and he's getting ready to go to ANI and ask for an interaction ban.[14] It's probably me he's complaining about this time, but I thought you should get a heads-up, just in case I'm wrong. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:54, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Its definitely directed this way, you know how he has a problem with me going back ages. I asked him to explain a comment he made about me on his talk page yesterday and he banned me from his talk page - which is fine as long as he doesn't continue to talk about me. I have already started pulling some links together for a defense User:Spartaz/rebuttle but I suspect that he is struggling to find any recent evidence of our engaging as we frankly haven't crossed at all in months until the Celeste Star AFD. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:53, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I was wrong. It was you. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:26, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

refactor, perhaps?[edit]

Re [15], "Since Erpert's entire way of challenging people who disagree with him is through casting aspersions and unsubtle misrepresentations of others' characters/motivations I guess this comes naturally to him." Isn't guessing "what comes naturally" to another editor pretty much the exact casting aspersions behavior you're speaking out against? You don't need that part of the paragraph, anyway, as your preceding two sentences are doing the heavy lifting of the (likely) legitimate point you're try to make. (I saw "likely" because I'm not paying that much attention to the thread and haven't personally reviewed the diffs). NE Ent 11:30, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Scarlet J[edit]

Please unprotect Scarlett Johansson. The article is undergoing active development with the publicity regarding her new movie and there's really only one editor pushing for the tag; I've [asked them] to stop with the insertion attempts. NE Ent 23:28, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Given his behavior I'll need that undertaking before I can do the unprotect. I'm afraid I'm shortly heading off to bed but one you have that asurance you can get any admin to undo it on my behalf. Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:56, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Favorite betrayal criterion[edit]

I'd like you to reopen the deletion discussion of Favorite betrayal criterion, as there was never a notice on the article talk page that it was up for deletion.

I'm not going to argue here that the article should be kept; the deletion discussion is the right place for that (On this matter, I do have citations that were not mentioned in the discussion).

The point I want to make here is about process. ~~Markus Schulze has repeatedly "stealth" nominated this article for deletion; that is, without posting a notice on the talk page or putting an afdl template on the article page.~~ Three nominations ago, I specifically put a notice on the talk page asking anyone who nominated it to alert me. Obviously, alerting a specific user (me) would be only a courtesy, and is not an obligation. But putting an alert on the article page is, and ~~he failed to do so.~~

In fact, after the deletion before this one, I made it extremely clear that I felt the "stealth" process was unsatisfactory (and made sure there was a link to that discussion from Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2014_March_19#Favorite_betrayal_criterion. I even proposed a policy for Wikipedia_talk:Deletion_policy#Renominations_with_nothing_new that would help ensure a fair discussion in cases like this. Schulze was obviously aware of this discussion. Given that, I view the fact that he made a stealth renomination as being, at best, very very questionable.

I'm sure that your closing of the deletion discussion was entirely in good faith, and that you weren't aware of all the history here. But I would strongly ask you to to temporarily undelete the article and reopen the discussion. It may of course happen that, after the correct process is followed, the decision is to made to delete it. However, I very strongly feel that as things currently stand the result is not proper. In fact, I suspect you can guess how extremely infuriating this situation is to me; I've repeatedly done everything I can, within policy, to make sure I would be aware if this happened, and as far as I can tell Schulze has effectively done an end run around policy to make sure that I wouldn't be. There's no sense making this into a personal feud: he can be a good editor and, off of WP, a good voting theorist; and I'm happy to WP:AGF about his desire to delete this article. But to be honest I'm having a very hard time doing so about the manner in which he's proceeded here.

Thanks for your attention to this matter. Homunq (࿓) 14:15, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The claim that I didn't add a deletion template to the favorite betrayal criterion article is false. This template was added on 20 March 2014. Markus Schulze 14:53, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, I'm confused. I believe that I would have seen such a template, but it's not impossible I'd have missed it. However, before claiming that, I looked at user contributions, and didn't see a corresponding edit. I'm not sure how this could have happened. Perhaps edits on deleted articles don't show up on user contributions?

If that's what happened, I apologize for my mistake. However, I would still ask that the deletion discussion be reopened. Schulze was absolutely aware of my feelings on this matter, and yet didn't alert me; despite the fact that I have always politely alerted him in similar cases. (In fact, the fact he's here now is probably because I mentioned this issue on his talk page.) And I have relevant citations from reliable sources which were missed in the deletion discussion. I also believe that Schulze's pro-deletion arguments were misleading in several respects (though not through bad faith). Homunq (࿓) 15:24, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article was tagged for deletion properly. I have checked the deleted revisions. What citations do you have that have not already been discussed at an AFD? Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:26, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[16] : contains a discussion of ways this criterion can be failed, though it does not use the word "criterion"

[17] This is a web-available version of a thesis, and includes a clear definition of the criterion.

Gaming the Vote: Why Elections Aren't Fair (and What We Can Do About It) by William Poundstone ISBN-10: 0809048922, p229: Mentions the criterion in passing (though it says "property", not "criterion")

[18] A homework problem in a math textbook which involves this criterion.

[19] UN report which is critical of the name of this criterion. (Note that mentioning it critically is still a reliable source that this is known terminology in the field)

[20] A draft of a paper which deals extensively with this criterion.

[21] A popular article on this criterion. Not self-published, this is a news site with editors.

[22] Another paper draft

(There are also of course a large number of blogs and similar sources which discuss this criterion.)

I also believe that Schulze's review of the history of the article [Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Favorite_betrayal_criterion_(7th_nomination)|here] is not a balanced view of the facts. Here it is, with my comments interspersed:

This article has already been deleted three times (here, here, here). Each time, this article has been recreated shortly afterwards.

I was not involved in the first two versions of the article, so I know nothing about those. However, I believe that there was a delay of about a year after the second deletion before I and others created a wholly new article with this name. (The deletion nominations have come far more "shortly" than this.) Then, in the case of the third deletion, it was not recreated at all, but undeleted as an administrative action.

However, the main problem of this article persists: The "favorite betrayal criterion" has never caught on. There are only 4 papers from 3 different authors in Google Scholar (one thesis and three self-published papers that have never been accepted for publication somewhere else).

The voting matters paper above is not included in this count.

There is not a single hit in Google Books.

Schulze has missed both of the book citations above.

There is not a single paper in a peer-reviewed journal that mentions this criterion.

Again, see the voting matters paper. Also, I expect this situation to change shortly.

Certainly, salting the deletion is not called-for; there is no suggestion that anybody here is acting in bad faith or contrary to WP policy, and I believe the record shows that I have been scrupulous in following policy here, even going beyond the call of duty in alerting Schulze when I take some action. Schulze has not reciprocated in this, despite the suggestion in the deletion instructions that it's a good idea to let article authors know, and allowable to alert interested wikiprojects.

Furthermore, I realize this is not a full-on WP:COI for Schulze, and I welcome his substantive input here. But it is worth noting that he has a clear reason to want this article gone; this is a criterion which is failed by the voting system which bears his name.

Again: all I'm asking for here is for the AfD to be reopened temporarily — say, for a week. I would NOT WP:CANVASS off of WP, but I would post a neutral notice template on the voting wikiproject and the talk page of Voting System. It would be fine if, after a week passed, you (Spartaz) were the closer again; I trust you to be impartial. I don't think that's a crazy request.Homunq (࿓) 19:37, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The papers by Hughart, Small, and Smith have already been mentioned in AFD discussions. In the papers by Stensholt (paper1, paper2), the term "favorite betrayal" is used in a different manner than in the "favorite betrayal criterion" article; Stensholt uses the term "favorite betrayal" as a synonymous term for "compromising"; furthermore, Stensholt's paper is not a "UN report". The paper by Ossipoff is problematic because Democracy Chronicles is not a peer-reviewed journal. The papers by Poundstone and Bennett are problematic because the term "favorite betrayal" is only used in a single sentence without any connection to the rest of the paper; in both cases, the term "favorite betrayal" is mentioned in a single sentence in which the author lists criteria he doesn't consider for whatever reasons. Markus Schulze 06:50, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be best to have this debate in AfD or deletion review, not on some poor administrator's talk page. (Sorry, Spartaz.) Homunq (࿓) 13:14, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When you want to get this article undeleted, you should start a deletion review. You have already done this in March 2014, so you know the procedure. Why are we discussing this issue at Spartaz' talk page? Markus Schulze 17:12, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because the process for deletion review explicitly suggests you talk to the closing administrator first; and then, Spartaz asked for citations. I'd be fine with doing a deletion review, but I also believe it is within Spartaz's discretion to reopen the AfD for further comments if they wish to. In the end, I don't really care where it happens, as long as both sides get a fair hearing; something I think didn't happen in the latest AfD, and won't and shouldn't happen in a two-way argument on a user's talk page. (The failure to fully present the anti-deletion arguments in the AfD was of course partly mine; I'm not casting blame, and I apologize for my earlier erroneous allegation that Schulze hadn't posted the required alerts.) Homunq (࿓) 17:25, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm certainly not going to reopen an AFD to discuss sources that have already been looked at during a previous AFD. That just leaves what you you accept are unpublished papers - the degree of engagement of which on the actual subject is clearly not that close. I'm not persuaded that the AFD should be re-run. At the end of the day the process was transparent and we appear to have reached a policy based outcome - close but still missing that final citation. If you want to go to DRV feel free but I strongly suggest you avoid badgering people who disagree with you and just stick to a short exposition of your points. Thanks. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:04, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will, thanks. Homunq (࿓) 13:10, 14 April 2014 (UTC) Done. Homunq (࿓) 13:46, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Black Knight satellite[edit]

FYI; That article is from April 11th has not been opened for 7 days and is not clear consensus. It is erroneously listed on April 6th.

I find your recent comment on my page to be abrasive, a simple "Please revert" would have sufficed. I have seen many non admin closures of no consensus and merges. I am one of the most civil editors on WP and I see no reason for this to case to further any issues. I kindly ask you to delete the recent comment from my page history and the one regarding canvassing. Thank you Valoem ^talk ^contrib 21:13, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[23] This was correctly listed but for some reason the transclusion isn't showing up on the what links gadget. Here it [24] being added to the log of the 21st March. This looks properly logged. I noticed my relisting tool was broken too. I wonder if there has been some recent chance causing problems with the AFd logs. You can remove anything you like from your userpage by the way so you can remove my comments if they offend you. I acknowledge that I am blunt but I do not intend to be rude. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:25, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As a sign of good will I would appreciate if you removed it or commented. My issue has more to do with the incorrect canvassing accusation (which I chose to ignore) than the recent event. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 21:31, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the policy By selecting only members of wikiproject porn to be made aware of the AFD this does have the impression of votestacking even if your intentions were benign. Your title Need some help on a few AfDs is hardly non-neutral and does give the impression that your intent was to obtain support rather than clarification on the sourcing. The mandated response is to notify you - which I did. As I said, you are entitled to remove my comment should you choose to do so. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:14, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I made a response on my talk page. I understand the impression, but given my explanation it was clearly not canvassing and an acknowledgement is appreciated. They were experts in the field that could have a deeper understanding of RS regarding that specific genre. Regardless I ignored that lack of response due to my gratitude regarding The Halal Guys DRV you took care of. However I find your recent comments on my talk page uncalled for and unreasonably abrasive. I am not so petty to ANI a backpage disagreement. I assume you believe that the AfD I closed would have a different outcome though I see it as an obvious no consensus and we may always agree to disagree. (And yes I am allowed to close NCs) Valoem ^talk ^contrib 13:58, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gennady Korotkevich[edit]

Sorry if I'm not bringing this up properly, but I'm a Wikipedia noob. I'm concerned with the deletion of the article of Gennady Korotkevich: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gennady_Korotkevich. Gennady is the most dominant force in competitive programming ever. Just as a basketball fan would be surprised to see Michael Jordan deemed not notable, so was I quite shocked to see this happen with Gennady's article. He is ranked first in the world under algorithms at TopCoder (username: tourist), first in the world at Codeforces (also "tourist"), winner of the most recent Facebook Hacker Cup, winner of the most recent ACM ICPC (in a team of 3: http://icpc.baylor.edu/community/history-icpc-2013), and the most successful competitor ever in the history of the International Olympiad in Informatics (and also the youngest gold medal ever). Here's an old Wired article that discusses him: http://www.wired.com/2010/11/mf_algorithmolympics/all/. He's certainly just as notable, if not more so, than other similar cases with wiki articles: Petr Mitrichev, Reid W. Barton, Gabriel Carroll, and Daniel Kane (mathematician). I'm new to wiki though, so can someone help me understand what I need to do to resurrect Gennady's page? Minilek (talk) 03:42, 16 April 2014 (UTC)Minilek[reply]

Not to mention that he was on the team that won the ACM International Collegiate Programming Contest this past year (probably the most well known programming competition worldwide) and he won the Yandex Cup. You can see at Gennady Korotkevich's IOI Page that he has won six gold medals at the IOI and took first place three times in a row (compare with the next highest gold count is 4 IOI Hall of Fame). Msg555 (talk) 05:40, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The AFD was open for more then a week and relisted to give it more input. The problem identified by everyone participating was that these achievements have not been recorded by non-trivial significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. That is the standard we judge article content for biographies of living people by. If you can provide evidence of this sourcing then we can look at restoring this. If you can't then maybe its not yet time for an article. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:20, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looking in as a third party (someone on #wikipedia-en raised the subject there) and judging from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gennady Korotkevich I don't see many alternate conclusions to 'delete'.

That said I don't see any reason to not just create the article again and include reliable sources. Even if they are hard to find, they are out there (I consider this to be one such). But what is also worth noting is that I just tried to look him up in the Danish media archive (all government subsidised newspapers has to submit their articles to that, so that's pretty much all newspapers in Denmark - at least all the major ones) and there is not a single mention of him there. And the only non-blog web-page under the .dk-TLD that mentions him (according to Google search) is an article from a computing shcool which had a participant in the contest itself. But that doesn't mean that there isn't Russian-language or other more "relevant" language sources out there. While I agree that it is a problem that people forget that EnWiki is Wikipedia in English and not US Wikipedia, I also have to admit that for me to evaluate reliability of non-Danish subjects I often turn to the big international news services (CNN, BBC, The Guardian, Al Jazeera and Russia Today are my usual lot) as I at least know where they come from. Sites like rbth.com are much harder for me to evaluate (though they do appear to have regular supplements in the Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, Daily Telegraph, Sydney Morning Herald and The Age, which is a vote of reliability for me). I don't see a need to rely solely on English-language resources (which would also mean that some Danish-related subject couldn't be on EnWiki), but it is important to explain the reliability of non-English sources, and with that in mind I think that the article could perhaps be re-created from scratch and survive. YM2C (the above is mainly cut'n paste from IRC, so if there is some coherency-issues please forgive me :)). --Heb (talk) 09:39, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That source would be useful in an article but isn't enough to establish notability under the GNG - this shouldn't be recreated until you have decent sources or it will just get deleted again. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:56, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all your comments above. Being new to wikipedia, your comments helped me to better understand what is required. I have found some secondary sources outlining Gennady's achievements and wanted to run them by you to make sure they meet the requirements. This article, with televised news footage, talks about Gennady going into the IOI after his senior year of high school, having already won 1st in the world the last 3 years in a row (note: it's in Belarussian, and the Cyrillic spelling of his name is "Геннадий Короткевич"). This wired article (note his name is sometimes also transliterated "Henadzi") mentions him being the youngest winner in IOI history. This Russian article from (his) Russian university press mentions him winning the Facebook Hacker Cup. Another Russian article mentions IOI. This Russian article mentions that he is "a multiple winner of school programming competitions", and that his team won the Yandex algorithm competition. (It later mentions that some people photographed won the ACM ICPC, but the article doesn't specify which -- Gennady was one though.) This Belarussian article from a Belarusian university (which is not Gennady's university) mentions Gennady's ACM ICPC win. Please let me know if I need to find different sources...there are actually quite a number of Russian articles when searching "Геннадий Короткевич". Minilek (talk) 21:23, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for responding in this way - if only everyone whose article was deleted responded so constructively. The TV source and wired article are sufficient for me to void the AFD so I have undeleted the article. It is possible that someone will want to look at the sources but I think what you have provided is good enough that we don't need to do this automatically. Sources do not need to be in English- although my Russian is now very ropey I can see its a proper news report and therefore quite compelling. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:38, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar[edit]

		The Original Barnstar
		There are several barnstars for diplomacy and levelheadedness and... well, pussyfooting; but none for honestly calling them as you see them. So I guess OB it is. I may not always agree with you, but I do appreciate that you don't hold back. Homunq (࿓) 14:26, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. That is the first time my plain speaking has been appreciated. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:39, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

draft ISERN article[edit]

Thank you for reviewing the deletion of the page https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/ISERN&action=edit&redlink=1

Would you mind posting or messaging me the results of the copyright detection? I had re-written all the text in my own words and would like to know where the problem is. The original administrator who deleted the page seems to take issue with notability and conflict of interest which of course is not a copyright matter. In general I am curious why deleting a draft article rather than open discussion to improve it is the default process. Seems counter productive. ISERN Member (talk) 20:24, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question for you[edit]

I want to start a second user name for a project I intend to start, but the user name is taken. (User:Omnipedia). Person has only done one edit on his own user space. How do I go about this? Valoem ^talk ^contrib 15:55, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:USURP?? Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:38, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 19:34, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Barmy Jeffers AfD[edit]

Hi. You closed WP:Articles for deletion/Barmy Jeffers as redirect, but its logs show that you deleted it, and its history shows no redirect. It seems like a script error to me; do you remember what you intended to do? Thanks. Flatscan (talk) 04:29, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do often delete content when I redirect if the content is unsourced but I have no recollection of what my intent was here. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:35, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Stone[edit]

Hey, Andrew Stone is in the starting eleven for Indy. See here. Can you put the article that you deleted last month back up since it meet WP:NFOOTBALL. – Michael (talk) 23:33, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another issue at the AFD was GNG and its not uncommon for articles to be deleted even if they meet an SNG if they are BLPs that fail GNG. I'd like to see sourcing about Stone. Thanks. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:01, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I understand GNG, but the fact that this is a rookie that now meets WP:NFOOTBALL means that the article would just need improving. – Michael (talk) 03:57, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please undelete this article that you deleted 4 weeks ago at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Stone (footballer). Now that he has made a fully professional appearance, as he did 2 days ago, the arguments of the 4 delete votes at the AFD are no longer valid. No one argued at AFD that the article should be deleted even if WP:NFOOTY was met. As I noted at AFD the original nomination was unnecessary and a waste of everyone's time, and we'd simply be recreating the article in a few weeks later. I see no need to drag this out any further by starting a DRV process. Thanks, Nfitz (talk) 17:24, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Historically this is something I would undelete but recently there has been a real move to require BLPs to pass GNG even if they pass an SNG. Usually NFOOTY is stricter so we delete even if GNG is met. I'd like you to run this through DRV so I can have a guide what to do next time a situation like this arises. Thanks. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:09, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a joke I'm not understanding? I've been arguing time and time again, that deleting such articles for fully professional players, who are virtually guaranteed to be playing shortly, is a waste of time. And though many disagree with me, all insist that they article will be restored by the person who deletes it quickly. On the rare occasion I've taken a similar article to DRV, such as the recent example of Quillan Roberts I've been chided for using DRV rather than going to the closing admin, or to a noticeboard, as such restorations are automatic, given the arguments made at AFD - example at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014_April_5#Quillan Roberts. I see no reason not to quickly restore Andrew Stone (footballer) before someone wastes their time recreating the article. Nfitz (talk) 20:32, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wait ... Michael took it to WP:UND at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion#Andrew Stone (footballer) after you refused, and someone else has undeleted. As much as I disagree with your undeleting it (and his AFD in the first place), that doesn't seem right. Procedural relist at AFD? Nfitz (talk) 20:45, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Its now at DRV. I replaced the page with a temp undelete tag. Further discussion there please. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:00, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Seems like a complete and total waste of everyone's time though. Can you fix the typo in your DRV nomination? I assume you meant to say you were "now" asked rather than "not" asked. Nfitz (talk) 21:19, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just went to Andrew Stone (soccer) to improve it, or make sure that it is properly referenced etc., before commenting on the DRV, however you have blanked the article. Surely you should be going through a deletion process first. And shouldn't you be discussing this with User:Amatulic who restored the article? I'll notify the other people who commented at AFD. Nfitz (talk) 21:22, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've been going through your DRV comment in detail. Clearly, there's something I'm not understanding, as you very clearly have much more experience at AFD and DRV than me. You said that "can an SNG permit creation of an unsourced BLP?". I'm not understanding what an unsourced BLP has to do with the discussion. I've checked various versions of Andrew Stone (soccer) from before, during, and after the AFD and they are all sourced. What am I missing here? Nfitz (talk) 21:59, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For a period of around 14 months I was the closer of most DRVs so I am experienced in this area. I asked Michael if the article passed GNG and his ansewer suggested that it did not. This was also one of the issues in the AFD and I don't recall that argument being refuted or I would have kept the article. NFOOTY is a SNG and therefore subordinate to V and N/GNG. For some years now there has been a drift to the view that all BLPs need decent GNG compliant sources even if they pass the relevant SNG. NFOOTY is usually more restrictive then then GNG so its unusual for something that passes NFOOTY to fail GNG. I think this is an interesting issue and worth exploring at DRV. Notability and sourcing is a slowly evolving thing and every now and then its worth revisiting to see if the overall consensus has changed. That's why I took this to DRV. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:10, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that was what Michael was saying. That aside ... what does your comment about unsourced BLPs refer to? How is that relevant to this discussion? Nfitz (talk) 22:39, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Michael Owen Snodgrass[edit]

How can policy dictate deletion when the CMG clearly meets WP:ANYBIO #1? It is senior to the CBE, which we have held a number of times to meet that threshold (e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diana Babar, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vernon Stewart Laurie). I fear you have made a mistake here and would ask you to reconsider. Otherwise I shall be forced to take it to deletion review. I would also ask you to reconsider Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Brummell, where I believe you have been overly rigid in your interpretation of notability guidelines, especially given a majority of keep opinions. Yes, I'm fully aware that it is not merely a matter of counting votes, but I believe this should have been closed as no consensus. In the past, and given the lack of a specific guideline, ambassadors with a majority of keep votes have been kept. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:07, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recognise your extreme interpretation of BIO so that anyone with CMG should be assumed to be notable. That's just ridiculous. There is no consensus that Ambassadors are notable by default so an argument to that effect is not policy based - when delete votes argue against the GNG and the wider meta consensus that BLPs require decent sourcing. I saw no arguiment that these articles passed the GNG. Did I miss that? Are there adequate reliable sources? Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:16, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for John Michael Owen Snodgrass[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of John Michael Owen Snodgrass. 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. Necrothesp (talk) 12:26, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Paul Brummell[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Paul Brummell. 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. Necrothesp (talk) 12:37, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:Closing AFDs[edit]

Wikipedia:Closing AFDs, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Closing AFDs and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Closing AFDs during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Piguy101 (talk) 22:34, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)#WP:DIPLOMAT: notability of ambassadors[edit]

I believe that you have an interest in this topic. LibStar (talk) 00:08, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(Wikipedia Talk: Bringing back the Articles of Brianne Siddall[edit]

Spartaz, it has come to my attention that you had just made a deletion of an article that was never meant to be deleted, and I'm asking you kindly as an editor to recreate the article that you deleted because I believe that this article can still be given a chance for editors to be able to update, edit and change this article for the better, and will prove itself that this article has mean for all edtiors to make it a better one, believe it. :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Norozco1 (talk • contribs) 00:54, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any sources for this individual that meet the GNG? Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:37, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
yes, I do have those sources for this individual that meets the GNG. Norozco1 ^talk So do the other editors that care about this article as much as I do, But you just didn't give them time to show them to you. comment added 13:41, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The AFD ran long enough for people to include the sources. Perhaps you could share the sources with me? Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:11, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, well for starters she was in the house of magic as Thunder and Dylan, credited under the alias, Murray Blue, she was even in Mix Master: Final Force as Tomo, also under the alias, Murray Blue. Beside on the deletion debate it was 4 who wanted to keep the article and 2 who wanted the article deleted, so how did this article end up getting deleted if only 4 people who wanted to keep this article up amd running?Norozco1 ^talk — Preceding undated comment added 13:39, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not looking for what she has been in, IMDB would say that and that isn't considered a reliable source for notability purposes. I'm taling about Reliable secondary sources like in the GNG I linked above. That's what you need to rescue this article. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:18, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ok, so i've been thinking and since this isn't going to resolve anything, i've decided that we should reopen the Articles of Brianne Siddall deletion review debate and then we shall truly see if the editors get to keep the article or not, besides one editor said "They'll find better sources, and if that is not done in 6 months or so, reopen the debate. In almost all cases better sources exist for people who have had notable roles in multiple shows, we just need to find them." So if your willing to do this, then we should reopen it in August, ok. Norozco1 ^talk — Preceding undated comment added 22:30, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - The way it works is you show adequate sources and I undelete the article immediately. If I think the sources you find need discussion then we rerun the debate. If I think the sources suck I say so and you come back to me when you have better sources. That's the policy compliant want of dealing with this. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:53, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(Wikipedia Talk: Bringing back the Article on Nate Thomas[edit]

The article had participation and comments on whether to be deleted or not. There was not a consensus to delete. Although considered marginal whether the article meets WP:Creative and WP: Bare there were two deletes and two keeps and a strong interest in contributing to the article to improve it. Biographee has produced and directed award winning television PSAs and theatrically released films, received national commendations from FBI director Robert Mueller, and won an Emmy Award, the most coveted award in his field. He is referenced in other Wikipedia articles, and as a tenured film professor viewed as an expert in his field having been quoted various times in major newspaer articles and journals. Biographee, upon my research, is also a member of the Board of Directors for LA36 television station and President of the California Faculty Association- the collective bargaining unit for California State University faculty. Deletion of articles like this one challenges the integrity of Wikipedia. I am willing to work to make article credible. I ask that you restore the article (best and fair scenario) or userify the content that I and others can work on. Prease (talk) 22:29, 20 July 2014 (UTC) (talk) 15:27, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Emmy is a regional one according to the AFD and I'd like to see the reliable sourcing to support what you say before I consider it. Please read WP:GNG and highlight me a couple of really good sources which meet that. That's all you need at this point. With regard to the discussion there were 3 delete votes, a weak keep which essentially acknowledged this shouldn't have been in mainspace and you. That's a clear consensus to delete but if you can meet the gng then you are good to go. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:17, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of pornographic actors who appeared in mainstream films[edit]

Please revert your early close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of pornographic actors who appeared in mainstream films - the AfD has only been open for five hours, and as yet few uninvolved editors will have had a chance to comment. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:44, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Failing that will you please let me know which of the criteria listed at Wikipedia:Deletion process#Early closure you consider your 'speedy keep' closure to come under, so that when I raise the matter at Wikipedia:Deletion review, we can get straight to the point. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:58, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SNOW applies. There was no prospect for deletion there... Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:31, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have entirely failed to address my point that almost everyone who participated in the AfD was already heavily involved in the discussion. AfD's are supposed to be a venue for contributors as a whole to participate - your action clearly prevented this. And since you cite WP:SNOW, I draw your attention to the following:

What the snowball clause is not

An uphill battle is extremely difficult but potentially winnable. In cases of genuine contention in the Wikipedia community, it is best to settle the dispute through discussion and debate. This should not be done merely to assuage complaints that process wasn't followed, but to produce a correct outcome, which often requires that the full process be followed. Allowing a process to continue to its conclusion may allow for a more reasoned discourse, ensures that all arguments are fully examined, and maintains a sense of fairness. However, process for its own sake is not part of Wikipedia policy.

AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:10, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your nomination was cynical, bad-faith, pointy, and I expect the admin saw right through it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:22, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My nomination was policy-based, the result of a prior discussion (during which I was advised to take the article to AfD by one of those supporting it), and entirely legitimate. Troll elsewhere... AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:12, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deletionists often hide behind "policy". You're trying any angle you can think of to get rid of something you don't like. That's bad faith. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:09, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Troll elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:54, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deletionists also don't like having their bad-faith behavior exposed. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:47, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note[edit]

Regarding this, it's spelled "goose". :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:46, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Facepalm jeez.jpg[edit]

This is Russavia. In relation to File:Facepalm jeez.jpg would you mind fixing the obvious issues that exist with this image, or I will have to nominate it for deletion, because as it stands right now it a blatant copyright violation. Given the assholish and bombastic way that you treated myself on a minor error I made once, you know it really disappoints me that I have to bring you down from the high horse you sit on. I will give you 24 hours to fix it, otherwise I will nominate it for deletion. 186.58.155.146 (talk) 18:38, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Troll that you just blocked[edit]

Re NigelHowells: This edit makes it poosible that the user is 198.7.58.81 (see [25]), which in return would make it Homeontherange (see [26]), who was just recently blocked for trolling as well. There is also the nonsense deletion reviews, claim of being on a public computer and shared interest in Canadians in the United Kingdom, for example (and various other articles on nationalities). Nymf (talk) 11:05, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]