User talk:BigHaz/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

Deletion of Randolph's Law

You deleted my Randolph's Law entry. A number of us here in the Quizzo community of Philadelphia want it back. The plain fact of the matter is that the phrase is in local usage. If you'd like to see a citation online, the best I can do at the moment is http://quizmasterchris.blogspot.com/ which is the blog I recently started for the quizzes I run.

I'm new to entering anything on Wikipedia, and I don't know what the next step is, but I think your arbitrary deletion is ridiculous; it amazes me that you've determined from the other side of the planet that people here in a certain subculture aren't using a piece of slang.

I don't plan to spend hours & hours of discussion on this. If you want the email addresses of Quizzo players in this area who can back me up on this usage, I can provide them. You took this down, I think the bulk of the work in putting it back up is your responsibility.

Thank you. Crandolph, reachable at randolph_19147@yahoo.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crandolph (talk • contribs)

Not so. I don't for a moment deny that a particular subculture uses the word (and indeed in my own experience of pub trivia quizzes, it's certainly got a ring of truth to it). The point is, though, that Wikipedia rests on verifiability (which is provided by reliable sources which are independent of the subject and non-trivial, usually discounting blogs) rather than truth. When the term catches on with the broader community, it's a term which can have an article. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 21:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Who died and made you the decision maker as to what the "broader community" is? Clearly all of Wikipedia - and in fact reality - contains all manner of local terminology. I'm abundantly sure there's all manner of FARK-isms related to FARK.com on here for example, and that's only language used within a single website, which is little more than a high volume blog. I am absolutely stunned that someone like you has all day to click through Wikipedia and delete all of the articles you don't think are important enough. This is my first experience trying to append Wikipedia & I don't find this response to be at all welcoming, encouraging or helpful. I don't find your response to be at all acceptable; what's the next step? Sincerely, Crandolph (incidentally both this comment & the preceding one were very obviously "signed" - look at the text, I signed my user name AND actual email address - I'm just new on here so I don't know all of the quirky little custom details.) While I'm at it, you'll note that a whole lot more time, effort, bandwidth and usability could've been had if you just let things alone instead of fighting me on this.

--Crandolph 23:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

In terms of me being "the decision maker", I'm not. As an administrator, I simply work within the guidelines and policies established by consensus over the period that Wikipedia's been operating. One of these is the requirement for independent and non-trivial sources to be supplied to assert the notability of anything having an article. That's not my policy, it's the policy of Wikipedia. If there's local terminology, FARK-isms or anything else here which doesn't live up to those standards, you're welcome to mark it for speedy deletion yourself or let an administrator know so that they can delete the article in question. However, the fact that there are other articles not living up to those standards doesn't mean that this particular article is able to be kept in any way - it simply means that nobody's done anything about those other articles yet, which is the way of things when you realise that this website is run on an almost exclusively volunteer basis. I don't "have all day" to look at articles, no. It just so happened that this particular one was recently created at the time that I was looking at the recently-created articles. Someone else may have found it faster or slower than me. My intention is not to "fight you on this", either. I'm more than happy to help you get to know your way around the place, but adopting a belligerent attitude in relation to my explanation of what happened isn't a good jumping-off point.

If you don't find my response to be acceptable, you have a couple of options. The first is to find reliable, independent and non-trivial sources and write the article again. You can even run them by me or another administrator first to see if they are in fact the kinds of things I'm talking about if you want. That way, assuming the sources can be found, we'd have an article on our hands. The other option is to go to deletion review and see what the people there think. They'll be able to view the article as it was when I deleted it and see whether it should be recreated. That said, DRV takes time and effort and in this case is highly unlikely to overturn my decision as it was policy-based. I'd recommend the first option, if you want an opinion. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

You clearly contradict yourself here; if you're an "administrator" by whom I should "run things by" and if you're deciding what is and isn't "non-trivial" and "independent" then you're very clearly also a decision maker. Yes, yes you are.

No, I have no inclination to waste my time and defecate all over the hard work of other concerned people by deleting their posts. I can see editing posts, I can't see deciding that what other people think is important is in fact trivial and untrustworthy and needs to be removed. I also value "truth" above "consensus." You win, you put the time in, this is your toy. Enjoy it. Keep in mind that none of this makes me think of Wikipedia as a useful or reliable tool. What it makes me think is that I should remove it from my list of reliable, unbiased reference sites on my pub quiz blog. Have a nice life. Crandolph --Crandolph 06:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

For the record, you've misinterpreted my comments. There are accepted standards for what a "non-trivial source" is and what "independent" means. It's not a free-for-all by any means, because obviously that way lies madness. My offer of "you can run this by me" was from the perspective of an experienced user who's familiar with the way that both terms are used here. You'd be welcome to run the exact same things by another experienced user if you feel that you wouldn't get a fair hearing with me, but there are objective standards for these things and what I was offering to do was to help you in the application of them. In much the same way, if I were to join your pub quizzes, there would probably be terms and rules (objectively defined) which I wouldn't necessarily latch onto immediately. You or another experienced pub-quizzer would be in a position to help me understand them.

You're welcome to view "truth" as being greater than "consensus", but that's both a false dichotomy and a misapprehension of how Wikipedia is intended to work. "Consensus" is not the opposite of "truth", but rather the general agreement of most users here that things need to operate and be sourced in specific ways. You're welcome to oppose that consensus, but I don't think you'll get particularly far. "Truth", on the other hand, is (surprisingly enough) not the watch-word for what gets included. "Verifiability" and "notability" are. You'll not find a single encyclopedia - open-source and online or professionally published - which has an entry for absolutely everything in the world, so I fail to see why Wikipedia should instead. Britannica, Americana and whatever other encyclopedias you can name all have standards, and Wikipedia has them too.

It's somewhat ironic, but if you believe that the removal of your article demonstrates why Wikipedia should not be seen as a "reliable, unbiased source", you've actually demonstrated that you wish it to be neither. Without the same procedure which operated to delete your article, there'd be nothing stopping people from creating articles on nonsense or from editing articles to include nonsense with impunity. In both of those cases, I'd hesitate to use Wikipedia as a reliable and unbiased source (unless, of course, I felt compelled to argue that the elephant lives in trees or whatever else some lunatic felt like adding). Presumably, the next time someone's preparing a quiz question about "Randolph's Law", they'll have to look elsewhere. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 08:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Context: As should be rather obvious from the foregoing, this was a simple case of "Why is my pet neologism no longer here?" I'm in two minds about leaving the link to the user's blog (which someone has already kindly commented on with the Notability page, although he's assumed it was me), although it explains why the article in question has now been protected. Those who are interested in how it is possible to entirely misunderstand what "encyclopedia" means are welcome to hunt for the post on his blog, paying attention to the mistaken claims of what I'd have allowed to stay (foreign language slang or whatever, apparently). Just be careful of the sour grapes underfoot, since clearly the Pub Quiz community bites. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

WHY DID U DELETE MY PAGE??? it was for my school!!

why did u delete my page? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Urvi93 (talk • contribs) 02:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC).

Looking at my recent deletions, I assume you're talking about Alessandro Volta Elementary School. As can be seen from the log, I deleted it as an advertisement. This is because the tone of the article was that of an advertisement and not that of an encyclopedia article. If you'd like help in improving the tone, I'd be more than happy to help out with that. As a second point, though, please remember that blanking my User page is a form of vandalism and not something you should be doing as a way of making your point heard. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 04:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

RE: Early Explorers

Hi. I see exactly where you are coming from, with the list. I wanted to start a list with many names of explorers from the time of 1400-1600, but that only spans 200 years. It has been deleted (what good fortune) and so I may create another list named Early Explorers 1200-1600. That way, it will be just better in so many different ways. Thanks again for helping. It really helps ;)

Feel free to help me list more names, I will be so greatfull!

Cheers, Smidget 904 08:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. I can't guarantee to be much use, since my knowledge of that period in Europe is frankly abysmal, but I'll do what I can. The trick is always going to be the context of the thing, though. Perhaps a list by itself isn't what you're after and this could be turned into an article of some sort? BigHaz - Schreit mich an 08:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: Blocking

I just checked, and you did block him correctly - for 24 hours, with your comment being "persistent vandalism on Holocaust article - keep an eye on him" :) If he vandalises again, you might want to consider an indefinite ban because the account is only being used for vandalism. :)

Chrisch 11:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I thought that was probably the case (account being used only for vandalism), but obviously we need to extend good faith even to those doing rather repugnant things. Thanks for checking that, too. Really puts my mind at ease. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 21:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Guiness/Stargate/Dr.Who

I am respectfully requesting that you withdraw both your [prod] tag and the [hoax] tag from this article:

1) because it is not a hoax -- this is a matter which has been under "discussion" within the fan community for some time, and while Guiness are unlikely to reprint all their books, it is likely to persist until the new edition is released in the Autumn clarifying the position.

2) because is is surely improper simultaneously to recommend the deletion of an article as a hoax, and to recommend deletion because the issue of a hoax has been raised. Unless , of course, you belong to the Wiki-Cabal, but in that case you would have deleted and salted already.

In short, this is a genuine controversy and one which, IMHO, deserves recording for its duration, for the benefit of those who seek clarification.
Simon Cursitor 13:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

In response to your two claims: Firstly, it may well not be a hoax, but I can find no evidence online of the fan community (or anyone else, for that matter) discussing it. If you can provide evidence of that discussion, you're welcome to add it to the article and remove the tag. Secondly, I'm not quite sure what you mean by ascribing those actions to me. I'm recommending the deletion of the article for the reason outlined in the Prod tag, that is that there appears to be no controversy. If there is no controversy, then claiming that there is controversy is an attempt at either creating a hoax or seeding controversy here (which is obviously a bad idea, since as an encyclopedia Wikipedia exists to describe existing controversies rather than start new ones). Given that there's no tag for "there is no controversy", I went with the first option. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 21:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Which is, of course (and I'm not ascribing it as your fault) where we ht the Wiki Stone Wall. If you know about it personally, and cite that knowledge, the Cabal delete everything as OR; if you cite fan-based discussions, it gets deleted as not notable or not sourced, and the likelihood of anyone in the accepted media discussing a fan nit with Guiness BoR (an English institution, even before one of the borthers was killed in an extremist incident) is next to zero. Whereas, if you're one of the Cabal, you just write what you want, secure in the knowledge that anyone who tries to disagree will be switched out by your colleagues. Thank you for listening. I don't thank you for being (IMHO) *wrong*, but thank you for listening. -- Simon Cursitor 07:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I can see your frustration, and I'll give you this much. If you can find anything which actually mentions it (whether it's fan-based or not), and it's added to the article, I'll go into bat for the article. I can't guarantee anything, but if there's something out there online I'm willing to at least try to come to the party on this. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Have BBC report, will post URL -- Simon Cursitor

Gamarjobat!

The Georgia Project is at Wikipedia:WikiProject Georgia (country). Cheers! Chris 13:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

But of course. Where else would it be? Note to self: When looking for a WikiProject, look in the obvious place first. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

O Meu Coração Não Tem Cor

On 30 March, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article O Meu Coração Não Tem Cor, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--howcheng {chat} 17:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

user: Korekodai

It was innocent playing around. We're best friends. It's really awesome that you'd do that for someone though, don't get me wrong. Just reassuring you that I wasn't really vandalising (she really does go on caffiene rampages and take cheese for protection). Samuffin 01:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I thought there was perhaps another interpretation, so don't think I actually added a warning template or anything (which I didn't). It just looked a tiny bit suspicious at the time, but I'm glad to see there was nothing nasty going on. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 01:49, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

2010 in Canada

What grounds would you say the article 2010 in Canada should be deleted? Mkdw^talk 09:08, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying that it necessarily does have to be deleted. All I'm saying is that the reasoning you're giving in the AfD isn't entirely fair. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 09:11, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: The AfD warning bot

Hi BigHaz, my AfD bot tries to detect previous notifications by using various checks, such as looking for links to the AfD page, links to the article and other well-known notification phrases. So far it's been quite accurate in detecting previous warnings, but it's always possible that it might miss some. If you see that happening please let me know, so I can adjust the checks that are done. I hope this helps! Cheers, Jayden54 14:43, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

It does indeed. Now I know what to look for, I'll see what I can do. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 21:55, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

BHS Exterior Image

Heya, Big. I apparently put the wrong tag on the Exterior_bhs_x1.JPG image when I uploaded it the first time, as you indicated it was missing a copyright. I've restored the image, taking care to select the proper tag. My office generates images using our digital photography resources all the time, and apparently in my flurry of uploading to create the gallery and images on the BHS article, I screwed that one up. All better now! Many thanks.

Bhs itrt 23:55, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

April Fools follow-up

Hi there. I'm just following up some of the April Fools stuff. See my comment here. I just wanted to thank you again for carrying out the update. I probably should have warned you that that sort of thing always ruffles some feathers (hence my "changed around later" comment here), but it wasn't too bad. Carcharoth 10:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

PS. The reason I made the appeal for someone else to do the update, was because the regular DYK editors appeared to be indisposed or otherwise unavailable. Carcharoth 10:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. You're forgetting that 50% of my DYKs throughout the year ruffle feathers (I'm the Eurovision Guy!), so I'm not really too fussed about any feather ruffling from yesterday. As I see it, there was at least a bit of humour on the main page for a bit of the day, so if it made someone smile we're doing things right. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 10:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

LOL! so you are the Eurovision Guy. I'll remember that... :-) Carcharoth 13:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

John Mauldin

My being spammed by John Mauldin's businesses reinforces what is my main objection (which you didn't mention in your reply to me): that the existing stub is not a genuine encyclopedia article, but a commercial promotion -- even if it was not posted by John Mauldin himself. But the fact that he *is* a spammer gives evidence buttressing the prospect that the posting party *is* the Mauldin organization itself (or he himself).

Furthermore, if we leave aside that it is a commercial advertisement, then it is still only a hagiography -- yet another of my objections.

So, I reject your claim that my being spammed is "neither here nor there".

In your email to me, you presented yourself as just some Wikipedian with a comment, then I read your Talk Page and it is to be surmised that you are rather an administrator, specifically the one who has been assigned to rule on my proposal. This was confirmed when I went to your personal page. If you would be so kind, could you survey for me the routine Wikipedia follows for communicating with a person who has submitted an AfD proposal?

If you would be so kind, could you survey for me where Wikipedia stubs are generated? For example, are there bots or humans that troll the Web looking for subjects for articles and snipping Web pages to create stubs? In this case, does somebody or something monitor new publications with a view to selecting authors to write stubs on?

Let me close with a comment on you "replying to deliberately inflammatory remarks". While many people indubitably subject you to that, I note that for your part you give the impression of being one of these people who revels in being snide and in leading people up garden paths, as when you are cagey about being a Wikipedia official. Hurmata 15:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Forgot to mention just now, I've already read your section, "My philosophy of editing". Hurmata 16:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I take your point as far as it goes, but there are some misleading emphases at work here. Firstly, the reason that I informed you about your rationale to delete the article being slightly odd was that "I am being spammed by this man" is not a reason to delete his article. There are articles about people I dislike here (none of them have spammed me to me knowledge, admittedly), but the fact that I dislike the individual because of what they do isn't a valid reason to delete the article. As you'll note from the AfD discussion, I in fact agree that the man doesn't appear to be notable, which is what the process is all about in the first place. Given that your nomination dealt almost entirely with the issue of spam and almost not at all with the issue of notability or any other policy, my message was justified.

Secondly, I am not "cagey about being a Wikipedia official" at all. There is no requirement that an administrator needs to say every time they leave a comment on someone's Talk page "I am an administrator and [rest of comment follows]". I'm open about being an administrator on my userpage and also here mention is made of my ability to delete articles. I am also not "the one who has been assigned to rule on [your] proposal" either. Having participated in the AfD in question, I can't do that at all. My comment regarding your rationale for deletion was intended to be taken as a message from an experienced user to a perhaps less experienced user. However, even if you reject that and take the view that I was speaking as an administrator, I fail to see why you've adopted this confrontational attitude in the first place.

In answer to your two questions: Firstly, communication with people who've created AfDs varies from situation to situation. I felt that you should be informed that there was a potential problem with your nomination, so I did that. Another user may well not have done so, and likewise nobody would probably have done so if there were no problem. I happen to be the kind of person who believes in helping others learn the ropes of this site, which is why I left that comment in the first place - and I apologise if you took it in a different way. Secondly, stubs are created in precisely the same way as any other article. If a user believes that a given subject is notable, that user may create an article on it. Clearly, someone believed Mr Mauldin to be notable enough to warrant an article. You and I both dispute that claim, and that's what AfD is for. To the best of my knowledge, there are no bots involved in this process - at least, not doing what you've asked if they do - since the bot-creation policy here is quite strict.

Finally, I do not "revel in being snide and leading people up the garden path". Are you able to provide me with an example of my doing so - other than this false claim about being "cagey about being a Wikipedia official"? BigHaz - Schreit mich an 21:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Undelete question

Hiya,

I was wondering if you could do me a huge favor? I noticed that you deleted at least one of the IWCCW title pages - they were listed for deletion because the main IWCCW page was deleted. Well through a lot of effort among some of us at WP:PW we've brought the IWCCW page back in a state where it shouldn't be deleted again. So could you please undelete the title pages since they're now needed again?? the pages in question are

IWCCW Heavyweight Championship, IWCCW Light Heavyweight Championship, IWCCW Tag Team Championship, IWCCW Women's Championship, IWCCW Television Championship

Thanks in advance MPJ-DK 09:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Given that all the articles in question are just tables, are you sure you need the material that was there when they were deleted? In other words, how much time would you actually be saving by getting the page undeleted? Not that I'm not willing to, I'm just trying to figure out if you won't be better off recreating it from scratch. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 09:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

So they're mainly just tables? I wasn't sure how much work had gone into the pages outside of the listings. Since they're basically tables I can easily recreate them and add to them instead of an undeletion. Thanks for checking MPJ-DK 09:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Yep. I've just checked the other ones (I was checking the first two because I couldn't remember deleting them) and they're all tables of winners with a sentence above them saying "This championship was for [type of wrestler]". BigHaz - Schreit mich an 09:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

hmmm

hmm what mackan wrote was nonsense. and a personal attack. so i was just pointing it out.But i can see your point to.--Matrix17 15:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Gmachl

The original is a copyvio of this site. What is the policy on these? And it's nice to see you back :) -Yupik 15:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

If it's a copyvio, then it needs to be marked as one and dealt with via the appropriate channels. It may be possible to save the article if it's in fact notable etc, but I'd mark it and see what happens. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 2nd, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 14	2 April 2007	About the Signpost

Poll finds people think Wikipedia "somewhat reliable"	Wikipedia biographical errors attract more attention
Association of Members' Advocates nominated for deletion	Reference desk work leads to New York Times correction
WikiWorld comic: "Charles Lane"	News and notes: Alexa, Version 0.5, attribution poll
Wikipedia in the news	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 04:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Deletion process

_ _ The delete page for an article includes the following instruction:

Warning: The page you are about to delete has a history: Page history

In the case of speedies, like your deletion of Francisco Álvarez, the following instruction at Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#Procedure for administrators is applicable, and fleshes out that common-sense warning:

Before deleting a page, check the page history to assess whether it would instead be possible to revert and salvage a previous version.

(You should note that this is the responsibility of the deleting admin, even tho well-informed nominators would be wise to do similarly.)
You clearly neglected this in the case of Alverez, since you would not have discarded good previous revisions on the excuse that they were hidden under n-n material, except out of ignorance resulting from your failure of due diligence. The deletion was thus obviously out of process, and i have reversed it, pursuant to WP:Deletion policy#Deletion review. This will provide an accurate chronology consistent with WP's routine compliance with the attribution requirements of the GFDL.
_ _ Your concern for removal of junk articles is admirable, in responding to a substantial need of the project. But please keep in mind that preservation of appropriate content is a comparable need, in order to keep your work efficient.
_ _ I am not undertaking a review of your other deletions, to recover other such material, but IMO that is called for, at least to the extent of statistically estimating the percentage rate and thereby the count of your deleted articles deserving restoration. You would of course be a great candidate for such efforts; in any case, anyone doing it would be well to note the fact, and the results, on this talk page, ideally in this section.
--Jerzy•t 05:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)