User talk:Causa sui/Archive 10

Xavier Weisenreder III

ok, thanks for the tip. cheers -- The Elves Of Dunsimore (talk) 07:20, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hemp

Hi Causa Sui At 07:10, 27 June 2011 you reverted an edit by Nickstarinfinity (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) on the Hemp page. Nickstarinfinity had made numerous edits to that page. At 07:14, 27 June 2011, 4 minutes after your revert, a new user calling himsef Nickhemp registred and proceeded to make multiple edits to the same hemp page. I saw something odd when today I spotted references to "Cannabis industrialis". I tried to do a DNS lookup, but loks like that function is no longer available. Regards, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 17:32, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Message

I was signed as DEMSAGROUP for business aims. To chnage my boss Demet Cetindogan page. But as I got an coution about the account I delete the entries and now I am on my account to add this information. There was two coutions about the entry. First one is account the second one was the source doesn't have the same biography. I did that because my past edits has a coution to sont hve the same informationa as it is on the page. But confusingly now the system told me to have the exact information on the site. So I changed the biography on the site to exactly the biography to the one that is written for wikipedia. Regards. Atif UNALDI — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atifunaldi (talk • contribs) 07:12, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question re: declined speedy for Vivek vk jain

Hi there, Causa Sui. I see you declined my speedy delete request for Vivek vk jain and 'PROD'ded the article for the much lengthier process.

Given that the article creator has the same name, this is a pretty clear case of WP:COI, as I see it. I spent some time in various search engines looking this guy up, and the claims of notability did not check out: all I found were his own blog posts. My question is, is the mere self-assertion of notability (by a self-creator, in this case) a reason not to add the speedy template, under Wikipedia guidelines, or is there 'grey area' around this? If the former is policy, does this not add to the burden at Afd? I also found it of interest that the creator had self-removed the speedy template and failed to respond in any way on the article talk page or his own. Thanks for helping me to understand this issue, Jus da fax 07:22, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I added a {{Prod-2}} to that one (although I also think it's WP:CSD#A7) … BTW, you might consider adding an {{Old prod full}} to an article's Talk page when you PROD or 2nd a PROD (as I already did for this one), since it can only be done once, and a previous PROD can get lost in the edit history. — 70.21.17.51 (talk) 23:27, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Missed one

Hello, Causa sui … FYI, you neglected to delete the Talk page for Anna Mott‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Happy Editing! — 70.21.17.51 (talk · contribs) _{23:04, 30 June 2011 (UTC)}[reply]

I don't know about precedent, but it appears to be SOP for most admins to delete the talk page as well. — 70.21.17.51 (talk) 23:15, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agha Shorish Kashmiri

Why did you decline the speedy deletion of Agha Shorish Kashmiri? I've done several searches and NOTHING on this person came up let alone that can establish notability. I am confused. You didn't even tag the article up or anything and you're an admin. I'm not coming at you, but I get confused with some of the practices here. It is inconsistent. KING OF WIKIPEDIA - GRIM LITTLEZ (talk) 23:45, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Kapilavastu

There was a vandalism with putting Anurudh Yadav and all the suff. I know the people who did it as a prank. So, I edited it, just to find it you have restored to the vandalised version. Please help — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ardahal.nitw (talk • contribs) 05:59, 1 July 2011 (UTC) --Ardahal.nitw (talk) 06:01, 1 July 2011 (UTC) Sorry to have accused you like that. I am relatively new here. Thanks for removing the vandalised content.--Ardahal.nitw (talk) 06:19, 1 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Certified in Risk and Information Systems Control

I disagree with your assesment in denting the csd. Look at the two sources, they are both ISACA the company that coincidently advertise their product. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 22:05, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Comin' & Goin' Guy

I saw you declined this AIV report a couple of days ago (now blocked by Favonian); this was yet another obvious MascotGuy sock. It says on his LTA page to block on sight, which I'd interpret to mean "take it to AIV" for us non-admins; he usually doesn't edit, he just creates accounts. When someone reports as a MascotGuy sock, you have to check the user creation log; if it's a new user creating a bunch of strangely-named accounts, it's definitely him. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:42, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tip. I don't recall the specific report so maybe you did this, but in general it would be helpful to point out that it's a quacker in the report so we can know to check the creation log or leave it for someone else. I'll keep an eye out for this in the future anyway. Regards, causa sui (talk) 21:19, 2 July 2011 (UTC

It wasn't my report, I just happened to have AIV on my screen at the time. His usernames are usually incredibly obvious, this one wasn't as much. If it doesn't have MascotGuy in the name (which most do), I put a link to the user creation log; I think I'll put something in the LTA page later to that effect. And when you block him, don't leave a block message, and don't tag the account; anything in his accounts' userspace is supposed to be deleted. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:18, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

XIKAR

Sir, I saw that you deleted the XIKAR page on July 1. We worked very hard to publish factual historical information, including references, as well as some educational information. We wrote and published according to Wiki guidelines. Kindly reconsider. --75.13.6.106 (talk) 21:28, 4 July 2011 (UTC)Kurt[reply]

Deleted Page Talk Page

Hey- you recently deleted Allana M jones as an A7, but you missed the talk page (Talk:Allana M jones). Could you delete it too (G8)? Thanks! --E♴(talk) 18:50, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mayooshy AIV report

Your edit at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&diff=437965406&oldid=437965245 is a good point, well made. I've deleted the AIV report and will remove my level 4 warning from User_talk:Mayooshy. Cheers, Tonywalton ^Talk 00:22, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

High Plains Invaders

Hey you replaced my PROD tag with an AFD tag, but forgot to create Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/High Plains Invaders. JDDJS (talk) 19:01, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unlock 350.org in the spirit of Dudenfreund’s Law?

Unlock 350.org in the spirit of Dudenfreund’s Law? 99.19.43.126 (talk) 07:50, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All right, I'm unprotecting it. A year of semi protection should hopefully be enough. I don't read German, by the way, but I'll be watching the article and dealing with anyone who edit wars over content. So be wary. :-) Regards, causa sui (talk) 16:48, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for your assistance with 350.org :-)

-) 75.219.221.158 (talk) 23:43, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contribution to 350.org :-) 97.87.29.188 (talk) 20:11, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you also, Causa sui (",) 99.112.213.29 (talk) 01:06, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting pages

I'm also aware, and frustrated, that Twinkle does not offer a prompt for deleting a talk page like the manual delete does. Perhaps the people at Twinkle could address this. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:36, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lewinsky close

Totally legit way to close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bernard Lewinsky and indeed I probably agree with you there in terms of the best read of consensus, even though I was firmly in the delete camp. Also thanks much for reading through that minor tome, much of which you can blame on me (sorry about that). :-)

I'm wondering though if you can provide a bit of a rationale for your closure. Often in lengthy and contentious AfDs like this one I think it can be useful for the closing admin to provide some insight into their thinking as to why they closed the discussion as they did. Both in terms of editorial decisions about the article going forward and any possible future AfDs it's good to have a rough summary of the deletion discussion from the closing administrator's perspective.

Not a huge deal, but just something I'd suggest if you are so inclined. Thanks again for taking on that oversized AfD. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:57, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the kudos. As for my rationale, I'm not sure how much I can add. Personally, I tend to be a deletionist when it comes to BLPs, and I thought it fell under WP:BLP1E, as several people argued. But at the end of the day the keep !votes I counted outnumbered the !delete votes, but not by enough to close as keep. Luckily, the "no consensus" result of the AFD does not preclude someone from merging or redirecting. Regards, causa sui (talk) 05:30, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Well that thinking seems a bit problematic both in terms of referencing your own opinion on BLPs (which is irrelevant) and the vote count (which is not all that important, relatively speaking). I guess I was hoping more for your read of the AfD, i.e. summarizing the specific arguments, their basis in our policies and guidelines, and the extent to which they garnered favor among the participants (which at some level does become a bean-counting exercise, admittedly). I do think "no consensus" was likely the best close and have no objection at all to that, but am now much less certain about the thinking that went into your decision to close it that way.

In any case, I won't bother you about this further--thank you for your reply. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:46, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you're reading me right, but you don't seem too bothered by that either. Take it easy, causa sui (talk) 05:50, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Humm, I came by to say I felt the discussion was pretty clearly a keep and if you are going to close some other way, it would be helpful to explain why in the closing. I don't see how WP:BLP1E applies at this point as WP:N is (now, after improvements) pretty clearly met even ignoring the "event" in question. If you feel the discussion concluded otherwise, it would be helpful to know that and exactly why. I don't think any of the remaining deletion !votes addressed the improvements to the article... Hobit (talk) 20:04, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I'll type up a rationale and add it to the AFD within the next couple days. If you don't find it persuasive you are sincerely invited to take it up on WP:DRV, of course. By the way, the above comments on my talk page should not be construed as a closing rationale: I'd meant to make that clear in the same comment, but apparently my efforts failed. Regards, causa sui (talk) 20:07, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great. It's extremely unlikely I'd take a NC close and bring it to DrV, no worries on that. I just feel (as I think Bigtimepeace does) that it would be appropriate to have a closing statement for an AfD like this. Thanks! Hobit (talk) 22:55, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a rationale [1]. causa sui (talk) 17:31, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

thanks, I'll point out you ignored the photography thing which was the majority of the non-event sources. No biggy... Hobit (talk) 19:35, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Iqinn

With regard to the Aafia Siddiqui article, The consensus was quite clear on the talk page, here at #BLP that the picture of Siddiqui wasn’t a violation of BLP. Just minutes after losing on that thread, he tagbombed the article with a {POV} tag. Knowing what kind of editor IQuinn is (tendentious), we patiently went to the next step (starting #Is iQuin’s {POV} tag necessary?) and arrived at a consensus that the tag was just flotsam left over from the photo issue, amounted to editwarring, and should be deleted. He hoped to use the tag as graffiti to force continued discussion. So he started edit warring on the tag. He’s been blocked before for misusing tags. Why was IQuinn not at least warned about editing against consensus? Greg L (talk) 23:11, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for the note. Our approach toward dispute resolution is evidently different. I am hesitating to make content disputes like this one into personal issues about individual people, as that tends to alienate fellow editors and poison our collaborative atmosphere. It's important that everyone feel included, and that we recognize good faith even when it is masked by editing habits that we disagree with. That's not to say that it's never necessary to show someone the door -- but it is important that we treat it as a last resort. Specific to this situation, ordinary dispute resolution channels may prove useful here, as the disputing parties may benefit from neutral and fresh perspectives. Regards, causa sui (talk) 23:44, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Try being a bit more balanced?

You should have either left the first two direct responses to Off2riorob for others to see, or included his comment in the collapse section since it wasn't a !vote. It was improper to have left his comment out in the open and sweep up justifiable rebuttal while collapsing the childish personal attacks. Greg L (talk) 01:37, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

other peoples comments

Please do not remove other users comments that are important to the discussion - thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 01:45, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ravians

Hi,

Your closure does not appear to have reflected the consensus, in fact you have taken one opinion out of six expressed (yes numbers are not the important thing, but it does make this closure an oddity). The logic you applied appears to be that BLP trumps all other considerations, though this is not a rationale for deletion if there is a prospect of improving the sources for a list of names, particularly a list where not every member is even alive. Would you reconsider? Thanks Fæ (talk) 00:40, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also confused about the outcome here. I understand that Sandstein's argument this was a BLP issue seemed paramount to other concerns. However, if this BLP issue is the essential nugget, why are we allowing the same list (expanded with non-notable possible living persons) to exist in the institution pagespace? Your closure suggests BLP is such an overriding concern, all unsourced alumni lists from all institutions (whether free standing or incorporated) should be deleted forthwith. This seems like a pointy outcome to me. I'm disputing your logic and your analysis, but not questioning your good faith effort to do the right thing. It's clear we see this differently. A further explanation is needed. BusterD (talk) 00:50, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments, and the assumptions of good faith. I'll break my usual protocol and leave the discussion here. Sandstein's comment was in the minority, but it was the only one that I thought was well rooted in policy and precedent. The BLP policy in general is sweeping and tends to override other policies; also, language he quoted from WP:BLP is unequivocal and the rationale motivating it clearly applied to cases exactly like this. I won't say that all lists of alumni should be deleted, but I will say that what can't be sourced should be deleted. I hope that helps. Also, I will honor requests to view copies of the deleted content, in case it needs to be merged. Regards, causa sui (talk) 01:13, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that sounds like a redirect is in order rather than a deletion. Fæ (talk) 01:17, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you can definitely recreate the article as a redirect if you like. --causa sui (talk) 02:06, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your considered reply, and I don't want to belabor this, but if the harm is so great to move you toward a deletion rationale on a stand alone list, arguably ignoring the mixed consensus, then I ask how can this same (more contaminated by non-notables) list material remain in the institution pagespace without violating the same standard and face immediate summary deletion? I'm trying to get my head around the difference. BusterD (talk) 01:22, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A minor, but important, quibble: I did not ignore the mixed consensus. I recognized it, but decided that other considerations (especially the much bigger consensus behind the BLP policy) overrode it. A small but significant distinction. :-) That said, you might be right that the same argument would provide a rationale to delete other similar lists. Without specific examples, this is a bullet I am willing to bite. The BLP policy does not equivocate about this and there is a huge community consensus behind it. I think it would be necessary to either explain why Sandstein's interpretation of the BLP policy is wrong (it doesn't mean what he thinks it means, or it doesn't apply to this case for some reason) -or- get the policy changed via WT:BLP or some other means. causa sui (talk) 02:06, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you don't work often with Alumni lists? Some time ago I created the {{Alumni}} template and have an essay about the subject at User:Fæ/Alumni. A poorly sourced list (even with no sources) can be marked for improvement with the aforesaid template and eventually trimmed if some of the names remain unsourced for an extended period. I have never seen an example where being listed as an Alumni was a matter for article deletion, though I have seen plenty of individual hoax entries that could be removed onsight. You asked for examples and I took care to provide one in the AFD, List of Old Aitchisonians. Perhaps you could start by considering that list. In the meantime, unless you are prepared to restore the article and possibly revise the AFD closure to a redirect, I shall raise a discussion at DRV as your interpretation of how to apply BLP to lists (one would normally consider WP:NLIST) does not seem based on particular experience with best practice and consensus around alumni lists. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 02:16, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, and nothing personal. :-) causa sui (talk) 02:23, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Ravians

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Ravians. 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. --Fæ (talk) 02:34, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

special appreciation from me (think of it as a barnstar if you like) for your very straightforward statement and reversal in the DRV. Any admin can make an error, though not all that many of us are prepared to admit it. DGG ( talk ) 23:57, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd felt it resolved better if the editor had not dropped a malformed drive-by merge tag on the newly restored list page within hours of reversing the deletion, targeting the incorporated list, and not failed to begin the merge discussion at the link provided. BusterD (talk) 00:15, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? The merge was proposed by someone else on the talk page, so I thought it fitting to put the tag on there. You already participated in that discussion, so you should know that. That is not at all a "drive-by", and since I have no particular interest in what happens in the discussion I did not participate. You are welcome to start it, though, and I won't object at all if you remove either tag. --causa sui (talk) 04:14, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	For getting vandalism off my talk page using Huggle. Thanks! Nathan2055 ^talk 02:34, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks. :) causa sui (talk) 02:51, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of 30 Rock characters

Hi, thanks for taking care of the deletion of these subjects. While updating the List article I've found that different wikilinks of a characters name point to other articles which in turn redirected to the deleted articles, i.e. Cerie -> Cerie Xerox which redirected to Cerie, which you just deleted. Would you be able to delete these per previous consensus on the other version of their articles or would I need to go through AfD again? The articles in question are:

Thanks for reading Darkwarriorblake (talk) 11:08, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, good catch, thanks, and good job redirecting them to the appropriate articles. You may have a strong case for this, but since the redirects are not implausible and don't match the criteria for speedy deletion for redirects, I hesitate to speedy them. In all my years on Wikipedia I never touched a WP:RFD so I have very little knowledge of how they like to do things. If you do bring it up on WP:RFD, please let me know how it turns out. --causa sui (talk) 16:47, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Causa sui. You have new messages at Hasteur's talk page.
Message added 21:01, 18 July 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Hasteur (talk) 21:01, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Griffin_de_Luce

Hey causa,

I saw that you relisted this for deletion today and so I went ahead and posted a breakdown of why none of the sources substantiate the article. Do you wanna double check it now and see if you think it's close-worthy? No problem if not, but I assumed you left it open because the arguments for deletion weren't very specific before. Thanks! N^oformation ^Talk 03:40, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry that I never got around to this, but I see that Cirt closed it. causa sui (talk) 17:55, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request

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

At User talk:Greg L#User:Iqinn

15:57, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Connswater Shopping Centre

Is is alright if the Connswater Shopping Centre page is re-created, if have to research into the mall and have got many sources for a new page. EastBelfastBoy (talk) 22:05, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Nasim Faqiri

The AfD for Mohammad Nasim Faqiri has the result of Keep, but the templates (AfD and ARS) have not been removed. Can I go ahead and remove them, or do you want to do that? --DThomsen8 (talk) 12:17, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, weird that the script didn't do this. I've removed them. Thanks. --causa sui (talk) 15:37, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Shadow Alley

Hello, the article I have started on with the name Shadow Alley has been deleted from wiki, may i know what the reason could be? MusicMania123 (talk) 16:06, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for the note. I deleted Shadow Alley because it was an article about a band or musical performance that did not credibly assert the significance of the subject. Wikipedia is not a medium for advertizing or promotion. See Wikipedia:Notability (music) for more information about Wikipedia's notability requirements regarding musical acts. Regards, causa sui (talk) 16:22, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, ok I understand what you mean. Is there no chance in editing the article though? Thank You for the quick reply :) MusicMania123 (talk) 17:15, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel that you can make improvements to the article that will make it suitable for inclusion, you can try drafting an article through WP:AFC where experienced editors will help you evaluate whether it is appropriate. However, please carefully read over the Wikipedia:Notability guidelines, as they are strictly enforced for new articles. causa sui (talk) 17:51, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Subtle Vandalism Taskforce‎

Welcome! I noticed you signed up for the SVT. I'm glad to see new people still coming across the page and help spread awareness. To be honest I haven't been very active in the past few months, and so some of the activity has waned, but a large part of the SVT is spreading awareness that this is an issue that needs addressing. If you have any ideas to help contribute please do so. It's a slow burn, but many people are active in this area so people are listening even if the frequency of posting is slow.

Glad to have you. See you around. Shadowjams (talk) 21:34, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

27 Club

Hello. I'm not sure if you were the admin who protected this article, but I noticed you put the template there. There have been a number of requests on the user page. :)RaintheOne ^BAM 17:16, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. I'll take a look and make any necessary changes where there is clear consensus. causa sui (talk) 19:08, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anya Verkhovskaya

I am this woman. Please delete my Wiki autobiography. Most of the links you accredit are wrong. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hiller17 (talk • contribs) 02:55, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

temazepam

69.165.139.174 is misrepresenting refs there. Take a look. 70.137.158.132 (talk) 05:50, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In Benzodiazepine overdose 69.165.139.174 has replaced "nitrazepam and flunitrazepam" from the ref by "temazepam", and "benzodiazepines" by "temazepam". Ref says no word about temazepam. This is insidious vandalism. Please proofread the statements against references in his changes. It was exactly cited to the reference before, he has done exactly the same before. It was reason for a deep revert. 70.137.158.132 (talk) 06:30, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

confused

In alprazolam discussion all 70.137 are the same, its me. And I agree with DMacks. There are no other 70.x.x editors around in the discussion. 70.137.141.96 (talk) 22:00, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have you considered registering a username? Since your IP is rotating it's hard to know whether I'm talking to the same person. If you were logged in, it would reduce the confusion. causa sui (talk) 22:24, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thats what I learned from the resulting confusion. You are talking to the same person. I am only an occasional editor, but I got a editing fit when I saw that all wiki pharm articles which I had once improved were vandalized by insertion of fake citations which did not match the ref. So I went into an editing frenzy. I believe I don't have the nerve to become a regular wiki editor. 70.137.141.96 (talk) 23:06, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion

I nominated an article for deletion here. I see you are a long-standing admin who could better judge the situation than I. I'd appreciate your opinion ... was it an accurate nomination? Jabbsworth (talk) 00:43, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You may have been right to nominate it. However, I'd encourage you to resist the temptation to engage in battle with Claudio Santos, even when he appears to vote against your AFDs. It is not helping you, and only makes you appear bitter. Sometimes it helps to step back and consider, what, if anything, is really at stake. I doubt it's worth it to expend so much aggressive energy over ensuring that bad arguments by Claudio Santos go unchallenged. If they're that bad (and in some cases, I think they are) then it's just as good to let them speak for themselves. But your endless arguing can be seen as disruptive, because, well, it is. Regards, causa sui (talk) 04:46, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good advice, point taken. Thank you!

Jabbsworth (talk) 04:52, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion/Jack Mealey

Hi Causa sui. I am inquiring regarding your decision to close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jack Mealey (2nd nomination) as "Keep". As your closing did not provide a rationale of how the participants' arguments were weighted, I am uncertain why the consensus was considered keep when User:Muboshgu and myself did not see evidence of GNG being met. Moreover, a legitimate concern was raised that GNG expects that multiple sources of significant—not routine—coverage exists, and the discussion to-date only unveiled one such source as a candidate. While there were more !votes to keep, I believe that the arguments were either not based on policy (i.e. there is no cited policy or guideline that a minor league president, manager, or All-Star is inherently notable) or was based on unsubstantiated claim that GNG was met when multiple sources have not been cited as requested in the discussion. Can you discuss your decision to "Keep"? Thanks. —Bagumba (talk) 21:10, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Do you want to discuss it here, or do you think I should add my rationale to the AFD? I ask because the AFD is more "official" but doesn't offer you a clear channel for discourse. causa sui (talk) 21:48, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If dont mind discussing here first, and updating AfD later if needed. —Bagumba (talk) 21:55, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All right. Here we go.

The first thing I considered is the previous AFD. You're right that prior discussions are not binding; but at the same time, they are not irrelevant. That a previous AFD closed as keep, and the only changes in the circumstances since then would only increase the notability of the subject, tilts the scales a bit.
Second, the rationales of the keep !voters could be condensed into the opinion that his work as league president, manager, and minor-league umpire established the notability of the subject. You objected that there is nothing in the notability policy that explicitly includes such a criterion. Note that Wikipedia does not have firm rules and the spirit of the rule carries over its literal wording. Crucially, several editors disagreed with you, concluding that the coverage was not routine and did meet the GNG and BASEBALL/N. While you might think their interpretation of policy was off-base, I was disinclined to make a personal judgment about that while closing. Also, while some keep !voters did not specifically cite any links to policy, they did answer the notability question in the affirmative.
Third, the rationale of the delete !voters cemented my perception that there were no unaddressed objections.

You're right that AFD is not a vote and we are not a democracy. But where it comes down to a "yes it is" vs "no it isn't" and both sides seem to think policy is on their side, a closing admin in my position will have to contort himself quite a bit to come down on the short side of the debate, especially considering the previous AFD. I hope that helps. Regards, causa sui (talk) 22:23, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the insight. I do appreciate all the factors that must be consider while closing. Here are my responses to your above points:

Previous AfD: Im OK if this was a minor and not a major factor, as you seemed to indicate when saying it "tilts the scales a bit." The previous AfD had only 2 !votes for keep after one relisting:

A procedural vote saying the nominator was not decisive enough (but didnt cite any merits of the article to keep)
A !vote to keep based on the person's accomplishments (no guidelines or policies cited, I guess WP:IGNORE was the assumption?)

Notability: There is not much to argue if WP:IGNORE is the reasoning. However, I would expect this in cases where WP:LAWYERING was occurring or the spirit of WP was being violated or was unclear. WP:BASEBALL/N was very clear in saying "Minor league players, managers, coaches, executives, and umpires are not assumed to be inherently notable. To establish that one of these is notable, the article must cite published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." If you considered this a new consensus that was forming, it would be helpful if this was included in the AfD's closing rationale that it was contrary to existing guideline. For the record on the 5 !votes to keep,

4 !votes were essentially of the same as last time variety of "he was league president and managerial career and minor league all-star appearances"
Only 2 of the 5 !votes mentioned GNG, but in a WP:VAGUEWAVE: DJSasso and Agent Vodello. In facr, Agent Vodello said the subject "did enough beyond just being a player" to satisfy GNG, but GNG has nothing to do with a person's accomplishments but rather depends on what type of significant coverage reliable, independent sources are giving. Again, you would recommend I WP:IGNORE.

I can only see a clear consensus to keep if WP:IGNORE was the main consideration. If so, it would be helpful to include in the AfD for other AfDs or WP:NSPORT discussions to reference. Otherwise, I dont see a clear consensus to keep yet. Thanks—Bagumba (talk) 02:12, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think your disagreement is clearly in good faith. If you disagree with my close, you are sincerely welcome to bring it up on WP:DRV. causa sui (talk) 04:43, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your time and the suggestion. —Bagumba (talk) 21:05, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chandler School

Causa sui,

As per the discussion at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ukexpat#Chandler_School, the content dispute has been resolved. Please unlock the Chandler School page for normal editing. Thank you. 66.214.44.226 (talk) 02:21, 28 July 2011 (UTC) 66.214.44.226[reply]

Please?66.214.44.226 (talk) 05:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)66.214.44.226[reply]

I'll take a look at it soon. I have to say that I'm less than impressed with the consensus building efforts of the IPs in that dispute, who seem to have "won" by badgering ukexpat (talk · contribs) and attacking his character until he gave up and walked away in disgust. causa sui (talk) 16:46, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While that is understandable with respect to tone, you might notice that ukexpat (talk · contribs) actually caused much of the problem by continuously reverting to a much lower quality page vaguely citing "copyvio" without any specific references, as well as continuously misusing the "notability" requirement. If you're trying to build out content on a page, giving someone more than two minutes kind of helps a bit. The anonymous school user did attempt to address many of ukexpat's issues with the page although they were marked simple reversions, but again, he simply changed all of it back to almost nothing more than a simple list of athletic activities the school provides. This is not behavior that helps improve pages, and these specific problems were definitely pointed out to him, with no response beyond deciding he just didn't "give a shit" any more. Markushopkins (talk) 20:26, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]