User talk:Sjakkalle/2009

Welcome to my talkpage!

Ordinarily, any comments placed here will stay, and only simple vandalism will be reverted. If you wish to make a personal attack against me it will stay for everyone to see. Someone else will judge whether an attack says more about you or about me however.

Note that I am quite inconsistent with where I make responses.

If it is a response I think several people might be interested in reading, I might respond here. Otherwise, I will probably respond on your talkpage.
I do not respond to every message (most notably RFA thank you notices), although I normally reply to requests and questions. Sometimes I am unable or do not have the time to do so (or I see that the problem has already been fixed). If I don't respond to your posting, please forgive me.

Previous archives of my talkpage can be found at

I am an administrator. If you need something done which needs admin tools, and it's uncontroversial, I'll do my best to be at your service. If it's an action which would be controversial, or which needs some sort of community discussion beforehand, I'll direct you to the appropriate forum.

Apokalypsos

Greetings,

I noticed the page for Apokalypsos, an upcoming online MMORP game, was deleted through your actions. That entry holds same value as any of the thousands of released and WIP game entries on Wikipedia, many for which are even either canceled or non-existent, yet they retain their pages here. Example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exanimus

Apokalypsos is a legitimate entry and is not just an insignificant website entry as indicated in the deletion reasons. Please reconsider your position.

Cheers —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sigoya (talk • contribs) 01:30, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AFD of UK Community Issues Party

Dear Sjakkalle. During September last year, you closed an AFD nomination of UK Community Issues Party: [1]. Your verdict was "no consensus". I have started up another AFD of the article, and I thought you might be interested to know in case you wanted to get involved. The new AFD can be found here: [2]. BlueVine (talk) 13:40, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Flagged Revs

Hi,

I noticed you voted oppose in the flag revs straw pole and would like to ask if you would mind adding User:Promethean/No to your user or talk page to make your position clear to people who visit your page :) - Thanks to Neurolysis for the template «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l» (talk) 06:48, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Featured article candidate George H. D. Gossip

Hi! I don't know if you've noticed, but the biography of the 19th-century minor chess master and writer George H. D. Gossip is a Featured article candidate. Feel free to check it out and opine on the article's worthiness if you so desire. Thanks! Krakatoa (talk) 21:26, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Einar Riis

Hi There I left a message for you at the DRV that you may wish to look at. Spartaz

User:Sjakkalle/Einar Riis

I have userfied this article per our discussion. I personally have no objections to your using your own judgement about where and when and how to restore this to mainspace. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:15, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

beat me to deleting the redirect. That was really quick! Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:16, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dwellers of the Forbidden City

Hi there. :) I noticed that you had participated in the deletion review of the module Dwellers of the Forbidden City, and helped to overturn the initial deletion. I just wanted to let you know that today, the article was successfully turned into a Good Article. :) BOZ (talk) 21:49, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for dealing with that vandal. I tried to be nice and explain the rules, but apparently they weren't interested in listening. I've since contacted Brion VIBBER because it is likely that the user who created and recreated Barney Naylor also created user McGyverMagic (notice the missing a). I was under the impression the software stopped this from happening, but apparently there is a hole in there. You might want to check the user creation log on imposters of your own name. (I created a couple of doppelgangers in the process, but I'd appreciate it if you kept an eye out on any fake accounts I missed out on. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:16, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

American Junior Football League

blatent hoaxes can be speedy deleted, especially this page, which was deleted in the past. --Bhockey10 (talk) 16:05, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative to notability

Hello! I am working on an objective alternate to notability in my userspace. Please read User:A Nobody/Inclusion guidelines and offer any suggestions on its talk page, which I will consider for revision purposes. If you do not do so, no worries, but if you wish to help, it is appreciated. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 01:55, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation.

[3] Your rollback of my edit is both rude and unprovoked. I do not expect this kind of rudeness from a long time editor. —Dark ^talk 09:09, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Argh... I am forced to agree with you. I didn't know that I had made that rollback. I must have pushed that button by mistake. Sorry about that. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:13, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No worries. —Dark ^talk 09:15, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thumperward RFA

Hey, I noticed your vote on the RFA as I was reading it over. He's the kind of guy I would love to Support, but my interactions with him leading up to that RFC and especially during it really turned me sour. Especially mischaracterizing my efforts to improve D&D articles as somehow being owed to Gavin's tagging? But time has passed, and hopefully my future interactions with Chris will be much more positive - still, it's for that reason which I won't be voting in his RFA - I'll let your vote of Neutral speak for me at this time. BOZ (talk) 22:54, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've made peace with Chris now. Did you notice my recent Request for adminship? :) BOZ (talk) 17:48, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Templates

Hi! Perhaps you could start using the Template:Cite web and Template:Cite news? Myself, I must admit to using them only 95% of the time, but it's great for uniformity. Thanks in advance, Punkmorten (talk) 09:40, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And also, why call it "Moss tingrett" when its English name is Moss District Court? Punkmorten (talk) 09:48, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Laziness. The problem with them is that I hardly ever remember what the parametres are called. But I'll see if I can improve in that area. Regarding Moss tingrett, I agree with you. Didn't think about the English name, thanks for fixing it. :-) Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:17, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh, I forgot that one needs to change one's preferences. In "My preferences"->"Gadgets", tick the box for "refTools", and you will have easy access to the parameters, from a button in the bar right above the text screen. Punkmorten (talk) 11:48, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ah, now that might be very useful! Been here for four years, and there is still something to learn. Thanks, :-) Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:52, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canada–Mongolia relations

Where did the formula come from that you used? - Mgm|^(talk) 11:01, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats on defeating Viswanathan Anand!

Have you ever considered creating a List of chess players who has defeated Viswanathan Anand through a chain of games :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Decltype (talk • contribs)

The chain is a kind of six degrees of separation type activity, used to boost the ego. After playing my first tournament back in 2000, I found I had a chain of nine games to beat then-World Champion Kasparov, so it has shrunk a bit since then. I think List of chess players who has defeated Viswanathan Anand through a chain of games would be very interesting, but it would be a rather long article (any tournament player who has defeated an intermediate player will almost certainly be on such a list), and for good measure, original research, so it I would not recommend creating it. :-) We do have List of people who have beaten Bobby Fischer in chess, List of people who have beaten Garry Kasparov in chess, and List of people who have beaten José Raúl Capablanca in chess. For all these players, I have seen at least one book covering their lost games, How to Beat Bobby Fischer, How to Beat Garry Kasparov and the Swedish Capablancas forlustpartier, the last of which is a rather thin volume. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:03, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I immediately noticed it's similarity to the Kevin Bacon game. I am sure that if you count online blitz games, my chain would be very short, since I have a 3000+ account on ICC :) decltype (talk) 09:12, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My chain to most of the world champions would also be fairly short, if one were to count blitz, as I have beaten Reinaldo Vera, who beat Smyslov, etc. Hushpuckena (talk) 10:57, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Sinsen Line

On March 19, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Sinsen Line, 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.

Gatoclass (talk) 14:58, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"glossing over?"

We may disagree as to Kirill's motivations, but I have a hard time seeing that I glossed over that quote. The first two paragraphs of my nomination are devoted to it.—Kww(talk) 15:06, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot say that I am eased much by the statement on that RFA. "I would have said it differently" and "it was poorly phrased" is not the problem. Poor phrasing is a superficial issue; the underlying concept, that such editors of these fiction articles are not worthy of any more respect than those who add graffiti and worse to Wikipedia, is what concerns me, and that problem runs deeper. The fact that you later defended that statement as "civil contributions" [4] continues to bother me. The problem with the statement isn't so much the word "vandal" as it is a fundamental disrespect for a certain class of good-faith editor. I am continually thinking about the oppose vote on the second RFA, and your recent responses to the BLP questions were refreshingly level-headed (though I don't agree with every word there), so we'll see. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The RFA is over now, so I'm going to return to this topic. Not being able to see deleted contributions when I'm chasing socks is a real pain, so I'm eventually going to submit myself to that agony again. It's pretty obvious that I'm going to have to come to some kind of terms with you if that effort is going to be successful.

I think the first question for me to probe is exactly what class of editors you think I have a fundamental disrespect for. I've attempted to explain multiple times that it is not people that create fiction articles, it's people that knowingly and willfully create articles that violate guidelines. The reason Bulbasaur came up was this series of edits:

Finally, the thing goes to AFD again, to what avail? A speedy keep in under 3 hours, despite a vote to redirect the article, because Uncle G doesn't think anyone really wants to hit the delete button. Given that, he then decides to edit war the closing of the AFD [5][6][7][8][9][10]. With everyone so busily wheel-warring over the AFD closure, I gave up trying to comment, and put my AFD !vote directly on the talk page.

Now, as to my level of respect: some of these people were clearly acting in good faith, especially at the beginning. But what's to be thought about the fourth or fifth person undoing the redirect? By that time, any editor on the article is clearly aware that there is no consensus for the article to exist. They are well aware that people objected because it lacked third-party sources, and, in fact, any analysis of the article at that point (or today, even) clearly indicates that it lacks third-party sourcing. At that point, any good-faith editor should have looked for third-party sourcing before undoing the redirect. Since none were added, they either didn't bother to look, or looked, and, coming up dry, undid the redirect anyway. That's disruptive editing. I don't care which guideline is in question: knowingly and intentionally edit-warring against a guideline is disruptive. I have a hard time seeing where you and I would disagree there. Can you provide me with an example of where knowingly and intentionally edit-warring against a guideline is constructive editing?—Kww(talk) 18:54, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If feel that your statements here are one-sided. You say "any editor on the article is clearly aware that there is no consensus for the article to exist", well there is no consensus for the article to be removed either, and in cases like that articles usually stay. Redirecting an article and removing almost all its content is considered a drastic action, one which needs consensus behind it. A lack of consensus is not a free pass to remove an article. Second, I agree that the edit-warring here is disruptive, and that editors on both sides need to take responsibility for that, but I feel that you have acquitted TTN's behavior (who reverted to the redirect three times, more than any of the other editors). To gain confidence in the community, I think that you will need to demonstrate a greater level of neutrality when talking about these issues. For some examples of editors who I frequently disagree with on content issues, but who demonstrate a very fair-minded approach I can mention Protonk and Randomran.

The very long discussion threads at WP:FICT should have illustrated that a hard-line adherence to WP:N for fiction articles is not what everyone wants.

Also, you seem to get very upset when an article you think ought to be deleted winds up being kept, but for most people, the grief of seeing an article deleted when they think it ought to be kept is greater. In the former case, you can just walk away from it, and not read the article. In the latter case, you don't have a recourse like that (yes I have heard about Wikia, but there is no community there to support and maintain articles). I have seen plenty of cases where an article I think ought to be deleted wound up being kept, but they really don't bother me much. The opposite result, seeing an article deleted when I feel it should be kept, is a far less frequent occurence, but they irritate me much more, because I feel we have lost something then.

By all means, continue to voice your opinions on content policy, and AFD discussions. I don't oppose people for their AFD votes unless they are being patently ridiculous (such as voting to delete Ellen Hambro, the leader of the Norwegian Pollution Authority who has a biography in a traditional printed general-purpose paper encyclopedia).

If consensus has not been with you on an article, don't continue fighting over it with proposals to redirect it, or continue complaining about the lack of notability on talkpages. Such makes you seem like a sore loser who won't accept the result. The effort is much better spent on writing or improve some articles on stuff which you think is worthy of inclusion instead.

Regarding the "vandal" comment, I would not have opposed over it had it not been for the fact that you seemingly overlooked that it was that comment which risked seeing you sanctioned, and that you did not appear to fully appreciate why people were upset over it. If the problem were merely a poor choice of words, I don't think you would have drawn the opposition you have gotten. The problem is the substance behind what you were writing. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:28, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A few points in reply:

First, imagine that I had shown you the exact same series of edits, but the issue had been a blatant violation of WP:BLP, with one side struggling to remove libel, and the other struggling to insert it. Would you still feel that the blame was balanced? Probably not ... most editors would tend to favor the group upholding WP:BLP and blame the group trying to violate it. That is really the crux of my argument: editors and admins shouldn't let their personal views of the value of a particular guideline influence their decision making very much. It's inevitable that it will have some influence, but, in general, we should let an objective evaluation of content and behaviour in the context of a guideline guide us more than whether we personally like or dislike the guideline in question. I think that is especially important for admins. What angers and upsets me is not the existence of the article, but the willingness of people to apply IAR without strong justification.
Second, I really think you should examine my contribution to the WP:FICT discussion. A Nobody pulled one reversion out of an edit history of nearly a hundred contributions, and did a pretty good job of choosing the one that bolstered his case and ignoring the 99 that went against it. If you look over my contributions there like [11], [12], [13], you can see that I did argue strongly to have the guideline call for at least one passing mention in an independent source. I admit to using Bulbasaur as an example ([14][15]), but you will note that I tried to insure the guideline was set at a spot where it would be kept, not deleted, in recognition of the general consensus that the article should be kept. I argued for compromise with people that were more exclusionist then me. I explicitly argued for a standard lower than I personally believe in. I supported the compromise in the RFC. I ultimately changed to "oppose", but that was after people attempted to rewrite the guideline in the middle of the RFC to grant inherent notability to all television episodes, which I view as an attempt to scuttle the compromise. Of course, that final diff was the one A Nobody chose to quote in my RFA.
As for whether the topic ban was motivated by the quote... It's hard to discuss this without revealing that the limits of my assumption of good faith have been crossed. If Kirill had taken up an RFC or WQA against me on the basis of that quote, I'd have only weak arguments against his motivation, and I would tend to accept that the quote was the direct motivation for the action. Leaping over every stage of dispute resolution and going immediately for a topic ban makes me believe his motivation was primarily his desire to make the whole E&C issue go away, and using me to set an example of what would happen should someone vocally defend TTN again. You can see here that I'm not the only one to think his actions had other motivations.—Kww(talk) 15:49, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As to your first point, if the reverts were to get rid of BLP violations, I would support the person removing the BLP violations. Such biographies can have a serious impact on a person's life and social standing, so lies and unverifiable content in such articles cause far more damage than edit warring does. (This does not mean that I support edit warring on BLPs in general, edit warring over well-sourced information remains unacceptable.) However, FICT issues are not BLP, the damage caused by edit-warring and endless strife far over Pokemon outweighs the damage caused by breaching a notability guideline, so I cannot quite see the analogy here.

I don't think you have been stonewalling the WP:FICT discussion, and I have not opposed, nor will I oppose you, due to your views on what the content policy ought to be on that issue. Indeed, I think your approach there has generally been constructive. The opposition is based on how you dealt with the people who very strongly disagreed with your position, and the "vandal" comment, followed up with defenses of it being "civil" and then merely "poorly worded" worry me.

Regarding A Nobody, while I view that editor as basically constructive, he is fairly far off to the inclusionist side on the "inclusionist-deletionist" scale, and fairly far off from where I stand. (I consider myself somewhere in the middle on that scale), and who sometimes exaggerates in his complaints. Hence, while I listen to what he says, I generally don't accept his arguments at face value.

Kirill was very unambiguous that the "vandal" quote was the reason he proposed the topic ban, and the ban did attract support from other arbitrators as well, so I cannot see that he was a lone wolf here. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:18, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wish you could see that parallel, because it's the failure of people to see it that makes me come across as harping on a topic. We shouldn't be in the business of deciding that some guidelines can be violated with relative impunity: when the tussle over that article (and hundreds like it) wound up at places as WP:ANI, the side attempting to enforce guidelines should have been able to rely on support. As for Kirill, I agree that he was unambiguous. I hope you can understand my point of view on it, though.

I do try to deal well with people that strongly disagree with me. If you review my reaction today to edits like this and this, I think you will see that I tend to hold my temper.—Kww(talk) 02:08, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:DRV top

Hi, this closure messed up the formatting a little on the DRV log page. I've fixed it, but please review the template documentation again before closing drv's. Cheers,--Aervanath (talk) 07:48, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I remember having a bit of trouble with it (probably because of a typo I made somewhere), and I didn't notice that the double header had popped up. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:30, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

invitation

Please accept this invite to join the Bilateral relations task force, a subproject of WikiProject International relations dedicated to improving country relation related articles. Simply click here to accept!

I noticed your work on some of the x-y relation articles, you maybe interested in this new wikiproject.

You may also be interested in Article Rescue Squadron. Ikip (talk) 04:45, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ryulong

The proposed decision is up in the above case. It is located here. The proposed decision will be presented to the Arbitration Committee for voting on May 11.

For the Arbitration Committee. KnightLago (talk) 01:10, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shameless thankspam

FlyingToaster Barnstar

Hello Sjakkalle! Thank you so much for your support in my recent RfA, which passed with a tally of 126/32/5. I am truly humbled by the trust you placed in me, and will endeavor to live up to that trust. Flying Toaster

Charlie Zelenoff

With the exception of the nominator can you please explain to me what the "rather large majority" was? I would have thought that that AfD was an obvious case of "no concensus". Again with the exception of the nominator I made it three for keep (albeit 1 being an IP) and three for delete.--Vintagekits (talk) 12:15, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I found four "delete"s in total, including the nominator, who does get a "vote" as well. The argument from the IP ("bit of a meme") was not given much weight since the argument was superficial, leaving it 4-2. A 4-2 case is in my view a "clear majority", within the discretion range for an AFD closer to make some weighing of arguments. The argument presented by nominator LordVolton and TreyGeek was in my view quite convincing, since Mr. Zelenoff's carreer as a boxer can hardly be de facto "professional" if it's based upon a single fight which he lost, and none of the arguments presented for keeping were fully able to rebut that. I'm afraid I'll need to direct you to WP:DRV if you want to have the decision overturned. As a matter of principle, I never vote to endorse my own closures (though I sometimes add a comment of explanation), so a decision there will be based upon other members of the community than myself. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:29, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Point noted. Although I cant be arsed with DRV at the moment and will just wait for his next fight in July to provide more material I would just like to confirm a few points. A. Apart from the nominator who were the four "delete" !votes, and B. I understand why you would may regard the IP's !vote lightly but wouldnt you also regard lightly the vote of the editor who stated "per TreyGeek".--Vintagekits (talk) 12:44, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said above, there were four delete votes in total, including the nominator. The nomination is counted as a "delete vote" unless it specifically says otherwise. On the delete side I had Lordvolton, Aktsu, TreyGeek and Willking1979, while the keep side were you and LiamE. Regarding the second point, I don't always regard "per X" votes as superficial, it depends on what they are referring to. If an argument is "per" another well reasoned argument, I give that equal weight with an argument which more or less retells that same argument. I weighed down the IP vote because "bit of an internet meme", or an appeal to Google hits has not been considered a sufficient basis for a Wikipedia article in the past, nor do I think it is considered a sufficient basis in the present.

Incidentally, thanks for dropping a line here! Your inquiry was entirely reasonable, and I've sometimes been miffed myself at seeing AFD discussions closed contrary to what I think the consensus was. In this case, I honestly do think that a "rough consensus" (the standard used to delete at AFD) existed to delete the article. But questioning our actions when you disagree with them, in a manner which you have done here, is needed to keep us in line. :-) Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:02, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would just like to put forward a few points about the discussion. Of those involved only Vintage kits and I are regular editors of boxing articles. What seemed one of the strongest arguments for the delete voters was that the fight took place in a school gym. This is completely irrelevant and yet seemed to carry weight. To my knowledge their are no venues dedicated to pro boxing ANYWHERE. Fights at this level often take place in gyms, leisure centres, boys clubs and so on. Check any pro boxers record for confirmation. If they didnt have a stellar am career it's the norm, NOT the exception. I also think the level of discussion about him on the internet is being massively downplayed. A single thread on the trailer park series in which he fought and largely concentrating on him at East Side Boxing has so far had over a third of a million hits and over 54,000 posts. And that is just a single forum thread. In addition he has had coverage such as this here http://www.blogtalkradio.com/BoxingGirl - which might not sound very impressive until you realise other guests on that show over the last couple of weeks have included guys like Floyd Mayweather, Oliver McCall and Steve Cunningham. Now I dont know if you know much about boxing but I can assure you they are big names. Also the vote was open for 10 days. For 7 of those keep was ahead or the score was level as far as I can see. At the end of the day there was 2 votes in it, which may look big in percentage terms but votes with such a small turn out that can be swayed massively with just a couple of votes the percentages should probably be taken with a pinch of salt. --LiamE (talk) 00:25, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support Liam, but to be fair to Trey Greek and Asku they are before solid contributors to MMA articles so are pretty much ofay with boxing as well. However, the deletion of this article makes a mockery of WP:ATHLETE, how can a guy that has qualified for a professional licence, has a proffesional fight sanctioned by the State Commision, obtained a professional promoter, fought a fight as a professional against another professional on a fully professional card not be consider to have "competed at a fully professional level" - did I say professional enough there?--Vintagekits (talk) 12:23, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I looked up the guy that reffed the fight last night. He has reffed fights that have included guys like Bruce Seldon, Donny Lalonde and Iran Barkley. So its certainly not a staged fight/fake fight with mock officials or anything as has been suggested. On the subject of the other editors I'm not knocking them, they all look to be good wiki editors and so I dont doubt their good faith for a second, but Zelenhoffs noteriety at this stage seems to be limited to those that follow boxing on the net in particular. There is no reason any MMA fans should have heard of him, and I certainly wouldnt recognise the MMA Zelenhoff equivalent, if indeed there is one. --LiamE (talk) 15:56, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Partnair Flight 394

Hi! I watched the Mayday episode about the disaster and put more info in the article. Basically the Norwegian accident board looked at the F-16 theory that the airline promoted and concluded that the jet was far away enough to not affect the AC. I think the overwhelming consensus is that fake parts doomed the aircraft. WhisperToMe (talk) 05:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work on that article! I made one change, because the line on the verdict in the lagmannsrett seemed to have drifted down the end of the article, instead of relating it to the F-16 theory. I was seven when that accident happened, and I remember it as one of the major stories which ran on the news and in the newspapers for a very long time. It is still remembered in Norway as one of the major disasters, even though its coverage in the international press seems rather limited. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:07, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Zelenoff/vintagekits

I wanted to bring this post to your attention since it appears we will be endlessly deleting the Charlie Zelenoff article. It has been deleted three times and Vintagekits just left this note on my talk page indicating he plans to endlessly repost this spoof article.

"I'll take it that you actually havent got an answer as opposed to not wanting to continue the discussion. I think you are mixing up the terms "spoof" and "non-notable". In a !vote of 4:3 it has been deemed that at this moment he is not notable. However, with an upcoming fight next month there will be more material on Zelenoff and the likelihood that the article will be recreated. Personally, I look forward to it!--Vintagekits (talk) 08:35, 9 June 2009 (UTC)"

At what point do we draw the line? Lordvolton (talk) 03:24, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see he's already the topic of discussion on the Adminstrators noticeboard regarding some of his other edits. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard

I've added the latest information regarding the Zelenoff edits. Lordvolton (talk) 04:12, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a copy of what a wrote on the admin noticeboard, partly in response to some of your statements. Thanks.

In my opinion a few thousand views on a YouTube article is not "internet fame". Simply stating there is "disagreement" doesn't answer the question of whether that disagreement is reasonable. One of the YouTube comments states that everyone has been duped and that the whole thing is a hoax, a hoax perpetuated by Vintagekits on Wikipedia. A student at UCLA working on a school project who fought half a round against a guy who with 1 win and 13 losses is not notable. The question we have to ask is why Vintagekits would work so hard to post and repost an article for this UCLA student? This is not debate about whether Vintagekits invests incredible amounts energy defending his actions after the fact -- he seems to enjoy exploring the limits of notability and the patience of other editors. The facts are far more important than the fervency of his defense.

There are scores of legitimate fighters with a single fight who lost. They're also not notable even if they have a YouTube video of that loss. To defend his actions Vintagekits references Kimbo Slice, an MMA fighter who has fought for EliteXC and appeared on CBS. Kimbo Slice now fights for the UFC. But let's assume Vintagekits had a basis for his unfair comparison, which is YouTube.

Kimbo Slice has millions of views of actual fights prior to his MMA career. Tbe UCLA student posing as Charlie Zelenoff has 20,000 views of a media experiment for class with a lot of negative comments. That's just a blatant attempt at failed self promotion which is continued here on Wikpedia - Vintagekits even promotes this activity by creating "see also" links on the Kimbo Slice page. There are plenty of other fighters with losing records who Vintagekits is not constantly creating article for in the state of Arkansas. Why Charlie Zelenoff? The comparison itself is flawed since Kimbo Slice was not attempting to create a spoof and participated in street fights for money -- not in a boxing ring for half a round as a hoax.

Vintagekits tells us he thinks Charlie Zelenoff is an idiot, but his actions speak otherwise. A person you think is an idiot is not the person you faithfully defend and create articles to promote and link to on legitimate fighters pages. The only reasonable action is to ban Vintagekits and any other editor names he may be using from recreating the Charlie Zelenoff page and whatever other actions are deemed necessary given his past history on Wikipedia. Otherwise we end up condoning spurious articles and countless hours debating with Vintagekits about their notability. Lordvolton (talk) 19:27, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Saw some guys mentioning you

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Krakatoa#Fischer

They basically mentioned asking you to take a look at the Bobby Fischer article and well I just thought I'd beat them to the punch, they're messing it up and they need to be stopped, please see if you can help.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 21:23, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about "disappearing" the last few days, which is due to me having been in England and away from internet access since Sunday. I did make a review of the edits which were taking place on the Bobby Fischer article, and my view on the edit being made is against your opinion here. In addition, I don't see the consensus that you claim when you removed the paragraph, since a number of editors, who have been highly active on chess articles and biographies, support the edit as giving a fair representation of Fischer's views. I also agree with GTBacchus who has warned you about personal attacks. Since I have worked with Krakatoa on the chess WikiProject for several years, I am far too involved to take any administrative action myself, but on general principles, calling people "fucking morons" will get you blocked for personal attacks and obnoxious incivility. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks, as usual, for your well-reasoned (and researched) response to the latest bizarre attack on me. Had I responded myself, I would have had a hard time complying with WP:CIVIL. Krakatoa (talk) 10:19, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Winter

Thank you for taking the time to post a well-argued, reasoned and civil response in the (small) debate about Edward Winter's description, in Wikipedia, as a "chess player". (Which he is not; briefly, this would be like labeling in the Wiki categories a movie critic as a "movie maker".) Nonetheless, I may disagree with what you said but this doesn't mean that I don't appreciate (and learn from) a civil and reasoned dialogue. -The Gnome (talk) 20:23, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Always nice to know that my input is appreciated. :-) Sjakkalle (Check!) 05:43, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Issues with 194

I am not familiar with your own run-ins with 194, but I've decided that the best approach for the time being is to simply adopt WP:SHUN where this user is concerned. At DreamHost, 194 is reduced to edit warring and threats - the Wikipedia equivalent of stamping your feet and screaming at the top of your voice. I think 194 will get bored at being ignored and go away, but in the meantime there is the ongoing RfC. If these methods don't work, I think arbitration is the only remaining solution. Keep me in the loop if you decide to take the matter further - I have amassed quite a bit of diff-based (DreamHost-related) evidence to support any action. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:07, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

194x144x90x118 RFC

Thanks for the notice. I already got more tangled up with 194x than I cared to, so unless there's any particular need for my input, I think I'll remain on the sidelines for the arbitration. You did a good job explaining the disruption that 194x causes, and I don't have anything to add.

Hope you are well, and it's good to see you involved with chess articles a bit again. I haven't been very active on wikipedia for over a year now, but I still check on things from time to time. Maybe I'll get back into it again. Diligent editors have vastly improved the chess coverage over the past couple of years, but there's always a lot more that can be done. Quale (talk) 22:06, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RFAR opened

A request for arbitration on which you commented has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/194x144x90x118. Erik9 (talk) 16:59, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An exciting opportunity to get involved!

As a member of the Aviation WikiProject or one of its subprojects, you may be interested in testing your skills in the Aviation Contest! I created this contest, not to pit editor against editor, but to promote article improvement and project participation and camraderie. Hopefully you will agree with its usefulness. Sign up here, read up on the rules here, and discuss the contest here. The first round of the contest may not start until September 1st-unless a large number of editors signup and are ready to compete immediately! Since this contest is just beginning, please give feedback here, or let me know what you think on my talkpage. - Trevor MacInnis ^contribs 05:19, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence length

If possible could ensure that your evidence doesn't get any longer. The Arbitration Committee has asked that generally, evidence presentations be kept to around 1000 words and yours is currently standing at a little over 1800. Many thanks.

For the Arbitration Committee

Seddσn ^talk|^WikimediaUK 23:32, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK. In case I need to add more stuff to my section I will cut down on the commentary first. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:00, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note on case discussions

Just dropping this note off here in case you are no longer following that page. Nothing major, just a note that discussion is better on the case pages. My fault really for starting talk page sections like that without making clearer where any follow up should go. I'll also be leaving a note on the case proposed decision talk page explaining my delaying in voting. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 23:32, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. The reason I posted on GTBacchus's page was that I was giving my opinion to him, and not to the commitee as a whole. But I'll leave future commentary on this case on the relevant case pages. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:58, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for SM91

On August 27, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article SM91, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page _{(here's how)} and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

NW (Talk) 11:07, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AFD

Sorry about that. Joe Chill (talk) 14:24, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

194x arbitration

Thanks for letting me know I was mentioned in the evidence for the case. Quale (talk) 14:56, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you handled it very well. Although I sometimes find administrator inaction surprising or even frustrating, it is not a job I would want. I don't feel any joy in the outcome of this case, but I do feel some relief that the disruption is over, at least for now. I don't share the hand-wringing expressed by a couple of people about how "unfortunate" it is that 194x had to be banned. I didn't think he contributed anything of value anyway, so I don't see any loss there. The real disappointment is that it took so long to finally end the unnecessary grief that he caused to others who are here instead to improve an encyclopedia. You're right that he was even more disruptive on the Dreamhost page and talk than he was on the chess pages. Quale (talk) 21:02, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your block just now

of 72.10.122.201 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

The school's last block was for 6 months. Is 24 hours enough? A little insignificant (talk) 14:34, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hope it is. Apart from the spree of vandalism today, the IP hasn't edited much since it came off its last block (although I'm hard pressed to come up with anything constructive in that time period). Since this is a Friday, a 24 hour block should silence it over the weekend, and if it vandalizes again... well let's just say that the next admin may not be so lenient. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:39, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That makes perfect sense. Sorry to bother you, I had spent ten minutes reverting the edits of this IP as they made them and got myself too involved with the issue. Your judgment was good, and thanks you so much for the reply! A little insignificant (talk) 16:52, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content#Proposed_clarification

FYI. This RFC is based on, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Jack Merridew/Blood and Roses which you participated in. If you already have commented at the RFC, my apologies for contacting you. Ikip (talk) 00:20, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Adminship?

Hi Sjakkalle. I'm very flattered that you'd consider me suitable for adminship, and I'm not necessarily opposed to the idea. I guess my concern would be that while I am familiar with all the core policies, I don't that much active experience away from editing and discussing articles (some AFD debates excepted), which might hinder me in an RFA. Regards, --Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:47, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a thorough read of WP:ADMIN and WP:GRFA and let you know once I've made up my mind!--Pawnkingthree (talk) 21:26, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Maarud

On October 3, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Maarud, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page _{(here's how)} and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 18:29, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ottava Rima

I would recommend you unblock Ottawa Rima as the motivation and need for the block seems very unclear. --Apoc2400 (talk) 16:18, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi your reasons for blocking him are not clear to me at all. I was about to unblock him, but decided to discuss this with you. OR, is not damaging the project. I think this block a little over the top. Graham Colm ^Talk 20:57, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I refer to the discussion Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Ottava Rima Bishonen and Risker. I issued the block because the pattern of conflict seeking had persisted over a long time. The desysop demands was just one element of this. On that ANI page, you will see that a number of users supported my action even though a number of people I respect opposed it as well. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:41, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Revisiting Milomedes

Apologies if I'm digging at old wounds, but I thought you might be interested in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Revisiting Milomedes. – Luna Santin (talk) 08:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted Housing First for Homeless Families entry

Hello. I agree with the prior debate regarding the limitations of the now deleted "Housing First for Homeless Families" page. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Housing_First_for_Homeless_Families&action=edit&redlink=1 However, I would like to have access to that content so that I can modify the original entry and improve the notability and objectivity of the entry. Eastcoaster26 (talk) 22:24, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RFA spam

Thank you for participating in WP:Requests for adminship/Kww 3

Sometimes, being turned back at the door isn't such a bad thing

—Kww(talk) 18:30, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Ted Andrews

What on earth?? The deletion of Ted Andrews' page is really not making any sense. Saturday, it was removed before the full period for response and discussion. In fact, only TWO people talked about it. Then the decision was made to restore it so that it could possibly be revised to seem less self-promoting, and to allow the proper time period for discussion. Now it's gone again.

Was this by your decision? I am new here, please forgive me; I am having a LOT of trouble knowing if I am posting in the right places or not, or to whom I am writing..

But I must say that this sudden reversal seems very arbitrary and unfair. Could we who knew him please have a chance to revise his page so that it meets your standards of "neutrality," as that seems to have been what was in violation?

This is a real tragedy and injustice, as he is no longer here to defend his legacy. He died the very day his page was taken down. He has many, many admirers worldwide, and his books are perennial bestsellers. He deserves a Wikipedia page. Will we have to now write one from scratch??

Thank you for your consideration.

Owlsdaughter (talk) 14:17, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The AFD debate showed a clear consensus for deletion, indeed all the participants there called for the article's deletion. The AFD discussion was started on October 17, and they generally last for at least 7 days. This one lasted for 11 days due to some relisting where further input could be gathered.

In a way, it was my decision to delete in that I deleted the article, but my role when closing AFD debates is one of a steward carrying out the will of the community who decided that the article did not meet the notability requirements; I do not have discretion to overrule such matters, and in this case, I could not close it in any other manner.

As a rule, Wikipedia articles are topics which one would cover in an encyclopedia, albeit one without space limitations. Their purpose is to inform readers who want to look up dispassionate, independent material on the purpose. Having an article about oneself is not a testament to a person's legacy or a reward of any sort. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:33, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it did not last 11 days. It was listed at 18:04, 17 October 2009 (UTC); I relisted it at 00:03, 24 October 2009 (UTC); Kevin (talk · contribs) closed it at 08:51, 24 October 2009 (UTC) ([16]), before 168 hours elapsed; the matter was brought to DRV, after which the closing admin reopened the debate [17] and relisted it. Tim Song (talk) 14:47, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was unaware of the DRV, and see now that I have contributed to the mess. The article is relisted, hopefully we can get seven consecutive days now. I am very sorry for the confusion I may have caused. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:25, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This must be the most bureaucratic time wasting bullshit I have witnessed here lately. There was a clear delete consensus, albeit a few hours early, not unlike about half of the other AfDs closed that day, then it was reopened for several hours garnering only a single extra delete opinion. Now we're opening it yet again? Not aiming this at you Sjakkalle as you weren't to know. Kevin (talk) 10:07, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know I know I know... It's bureaucratic. The trouble is that controversy can arise from jumping the gun, even if only slightly. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:02, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Election RFC courtesy notice

A request for comment that may interest you is currently in progress at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee 2. If you have already participated, then please disregard this notice and my apologies. Manning (talk) 08:36, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You received this message because you participated in the earlier ArbCom secret ballot RFC.

M & M Coaches

I just want to take a second to say that I am impressed with the way you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/M & M Coaches. You went with the consensus decision, but then you took the extra step and actually merged the article. I followed this discussion and kept saying to myself that no one was going to merge it with anything. So in short, kudos to you. J04n(talk page) 12:55, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the kind words! Two sections over this you will see an example of me screwing up badly on another AFD closing, so its good that I can do something right. :-) Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:57, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have eaten thousands of M&M's over the years, and have seen no evidence that any of them have been coached. They can't do a damned thing, unless "playing dead" counts. Krakatoa (talk) 19:33, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hmm, maybe I'm selling them short. I see from the article on M&M's that, "In July 2009, a study showed that a dye similar to that in blue M&M's showed benefits in helping paralyzed rats to walk again." If I ever have a paralyzed rat, I'll feed it blue M&M's and see if they help. Krakatoa (talk) 19:38, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tristan Emmanuel

I just wanted to thank you for your elaboration on your decision in this recent AfD. Usually all we get is one line, telling us the result - not the logic behind why that was the result. DigitalC (talk) 20:41, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! In general I try to provide a persuasive rationale on potentially controversial AFD closures in order to acknowledge the participants in the debate (assuring everyone that their opinions were read), head off DRV appeals, and aid the particpants when such closures are taken to DRV. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:12, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DRV, ConceptDraw Project

I have no fault with your rationale. This is a special case to DRV because of spamming. Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_November_6#ConceptDraw_Project Miami33139 (talk) 23:40, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Thanks for the quick protect...I'll give you a shout in a day or two when things have died down and get you to un-protect it at that point. Frmatt (talk) 07:28, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like things have died off...you can unprotect it now...if it becomes a problem again, I'll just have to deal with it again! happy Editing! Frmatt (talk) 00:16, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, the talkpage is unprotected now. Thanks for alerting the ANI noticeboard about the first trouble. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:02, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Hans Olav Lahlum

On November 10, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Hans Olav Lahlum, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page _{(here's how)} and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 17:14, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to participate in SecurePoll feedback and workshop

As you participated in the recent Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two requests for comment that relate to the use of SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Risker (talk) 08:33, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request at User talk:71.17.212.57

It looks like the user added one word to Alison's page and it wasn't directed specifically at her, after which they were blocked for two weeks. The IP has requested an unblock and I wanted to get your thoughts on the block itself. I am leaning towards shortening it to time served, unless this range is known for vandalism and such. Thanks! TN X Man 03:54, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have accepted the unblock request. The IP appears to have been suckered into making unconstructive edits on behalf of a banned user after reading something on a webforum. The modus operandi of the mastermind is to make a vandal edit, then post a link to the vandalized revision on a webforum, and dare other people to make that edit, who then unwittingly become meatpuppets editing on behalf of the banned user, and wind up being treated as the banned user. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive576#User:Ongar the World-Weary for the thread which led to this. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:22, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. Thanks for the response! TN X Man 12:41, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly harmless

[Bishzilla in high dudgeon: ] "Mostly harmless"? Snort. Little Sjakkalle is harmless one! Silly little user did support Bishzilla RFA—but only with Extreme Neutrality ! [The monster sourly extracts Sjakkalle from comfy pocket and places him on the cold, hard floor with Jimbo Wales. ] bishzilla _ROARR!! 20:11, 21 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Notification: Proposed 'Motion to Close' at Wikipedia:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC re: a 'Motion to close', which would dissolve Cda as a proposal. The motion includes an !vote. You have previously commented at this page. Jusdafax 05:07, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Community de-Adminship - finalization poll for the CDA proposal

After tolling up the votes in the revision proposals, it emerged that 5.4 had the most support, but elements of that support remained unclear, and various comments throughout the polls needed consideration.

A finalisation poll (intended, if possible, to be one last poll before finalising the CDA proposal) has been run to;

gather opinion on the 'consensus margin' (what percentages, if any, have the most support) and

ascertain whether there is support for a 'two-phase' poll at the eventual RfC (not far off now), where CDA will finally be put to the community. Matt Lewis (talk) 01:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]