Jump to content

User talk:Spartaz/Archive19

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Your BLP violation on David Stuart (diplomat)

[edit]

Spartaz, I know that you get much pleasure from badmouthing myself and jerking off everytime I let one my socks be found. But in the resultant aftermath, you obviously have an eye full of goo and don't see what you are doing.

At Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Russavia/Archive#01_July_2014_2 you mentioned that you rolled back all edits, which including this edit by myself. With your rollback, you have reinserted a category to the article for a position which the person in question has never held. This, my dear boy, is a WP:BLP violation.

This is just a heads-up that I have reverted your BLP violation. Thanks, 109.196.127.35 (talk) 06:39, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration case request

[edit]

Hi Spartaz, I've commented out the picture you used as your statement as is draws disproportionate attention to your statement and isn't too decorous. Please feel free to make a statement which adds something to the request. Such as a reason the Committee should hear the case. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:05, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Spartaz, please don't revert the clerks, they're trying to make Arbcom proceedings a better place. If you disagree with one of their actions, the place to go is their noticeboard. WormTT(talk) 08:57, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

this shit again

[edit]

Re Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Clerks#Information -- let it go. AC has never let images remain in their case pages, so it's not a personal thing. They've allowed the image link to remain, so your meaning is clear. NE Ent 19:41, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I still want my question answered. Spartaz Humbug! 22:02, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Case Opened: Banning Policy

[edit]

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Banning Policy. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Banning Policy/Evidence. Please add your evidence by September 16, 2014, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Banning Policy/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Seddon talk 12:28, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sandbox question

[edit]

Hey, I was looking for some old information I may have stored somewhere and just noticed that you deleted User:Yaksar/sandbox a few years back. I'm sure this was just some run of the mill procedural thing, but could you let me know if there was any content or edit history on the page when it was deleted and, if so, restore it if possible?--Yaksar (let's chat) 16:14, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLPSOURCES

[edit]

You recently reverted another editor and protected an article, [2] justifying your action due to the action of the previous admin, who cited BLPSOURCES. However, I must inform you, BLPSOURCES is explicit on what qualifies for reverting. The relevant parts of the policy that you are appealing to include:

  1. Contentious material that is poorly sourced
  2. Clear BLP violations

The material in question has been previous discussed in February 2014 on both the talk page and on the relevant BLP noticeboard. In both discussions, no evidence emerged that this particular source involves either 1) contentious material nor 2) clear BLP violation. Therefore, your revert and subsequent protection was without merit and should be reversed immediately. Viriditas (talk) 00:38, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They won't. This isn't about the source or the article. This is a show of power in my opinion.--Mark Miller (talk) 11:52, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
By the way. I don't want you to feel you are being personally attacked. It is your contribution I criticize. It does appear to be a show of force. I don't know you. You are probably an excellent editor but I do find your contributions as an administrator to be less than acceptable.--Mark Miller (talk) 12:13, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The policy I referred to is the actual BLP which states under Remove contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced
Shortcuts

Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced; that is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see No original research); that relies on self-published sources, unless written by the subject of the BLP (see below); or that relies on sources that fail in some other way to meet Verifiability standards. Note: although the three-revert rule does not apply to such removals, what counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Editors who find themselves in edit wars over potentially defamatory material about living persons should consider raising the matter at the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on the exemption.
Under Restoring deleted content it states:
To ensure that material about living people is written neutrally to a high standard, and based on high-quality reliable sources, the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete the disputed material.
When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies. If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first, and wherever possible disputed deletions should be discussed first with the administrator who deleted the article. Material that has been repaired to address concerns should be judged on a case-by-case basis.
John removed the material citing BLP. Whether or not that is right is down to a talk page discussion. The one which was already there did not demonstratively come down in favour of the Daily Mail and as such John was arguably enforcing consensus as well as exercising admin functions under BLP. I have no strong opinion on the actual content but I am clear the policy is that deleted material under BLP should not be restored without a positive consensus to do that. Absent that it is perfect reasonable for any admin to put an article back to the argued BLP compliant state subject to that discussion. This action implies no endorsement of either pro or anti position. Simply a desire to see the content determined by discussion rather than reverting.
You are both entitled to your opinions about t he reasons for my actions but as Mark says you don't know me so your opinions are just that. Speculation. The above interpretations of policy are the reason I acted, If you disagree feel free to ask for a second opinion at ANI. Personally, I would suggest that resolving that consensus on the article talk page is the most productive activity but YMMV.
I get you don't approve of my actions. I can't say I'm over impressed by some of the behavior or rhetoric I have seen around this either but I hope that we are all adult and mature enough to appreciate that other people may have different perceptions of the same events in good faith and subsequently act on that perception in good faith. I realise that some of that good faith is a long way short of being applied at times but I'm old enough and ugly enough not to get upset by that. Whether or not you do is something I do not control. Spartaz Humbug! 18:49, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There was NO contentious material and the two of you are just picking a fight with an editor you disapprove of and using your tools over a content dispute. Seriously. Unacceptable. Also...you really need to get your shit together when you talk about me and begin telling people I was involved in your block of Viriditas. Such dishonesty and exaggeration is well beyond what is expected of an administrator. I did not involve myself in the 3RR discussion, nor did I ever say one thing about the block until you lied on the edit war page to attempt to drive me off the discussion. You're out of control.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:26, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't referring to the block. I was referring to the underlying dispute at Talk:Maup_Caransa and described your support of Viriditas Vehement, According to Merriam Webster Vehement means showing strong and often angry feelings : very emotional. Which part of I don't know what the fuck you are screaming at and I don't give a fucking shit. doesn't fit that description? Spartaz Humbug! 06:27, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If I may comment here, I've read that discussion, and Mark wasn't offering "vehement" support of my position on that page. He was responding to Drmies' attitude in that discussion. I can't see how that could possibly be construed as "vehement" support of my position, as it has nothing to do with it. Viriditas (talk) 23:45, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

EFC Africa

[edit]

I did not see a Deletion review on this [3]. Is this Kosher?--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 16:26, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Lane (television personality)

[edit]

Any way we can reopen the debate for this page deletion? I had been using it as a reference and I think it was useful, just needed to be updated. And let me know if there is a better way to communicate this, I apologize in advance if this isn't the right place. Ntsecrets (talk) 15:41, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sorry, but I am not aware that I need standing to join in the questions raised by another editor.  We are here to build an encyclopedia.  That I am also involved is seen by looking at the AfD.
Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers is an English Wikipedia behavioral guideline.  The nutshell states, "Do not be hostile toward fellow editors; newcomers in particular. Remember to assume good faith and respond to problematic edits in a clear and polite manner."
I assume that your edit comment "go away" was not intended to be "hostile toward fellow editors".
WP:Articles for deletion#How an AfD discussion is closed states, "Questions or concerns about a closure should first be asked on the talk page of the editor who closed the discussion."
You've yet to reply to Ntsecrets's questions asking how to update the article, and about better ways to communicate his/her questions.  Also, your initial answer IMO does not explain the deletion, as WP:GNG is not covered as a reason for deletion in WP:Deletion policy, and for this AfD this is a significant detail.  Nor have your comments so far addressed the fact that this topic's name appears in a dozen articles in the encyclopedia.
WP:Guide_to_deletion#Closure states, "A good admin will transparently explain how the decision was reached."  Respectfully, Unscintillating (talk) 13:12, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not ever post on my talk page again except for mandatory notifications. Go away. Spartaz Humbug! 13:30, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While I empathize totally with getting fed up (e.g. "Not this shit again") with Wikipedia, the solution is to take a back for as long as necessary to conduct oneself appropriately. You are not required to perform admin actions if you don't feel like it, but once you chose to do so you are required to follow the standards set forth at WP:ADMINACCT, and your responses here have failed to to so. As a participant in the Afd, Unscintillating has every right to post on the page, and your reply to Ntsecrets, while polite, was incomplete. (I've left them a note on their talk page User talk:Ntsecrets). NE Ent 15:35, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jorge Gracie

[edit]

The article was deleted via a 3-2 vote. This isn't a consensus but rather a small majority. I have seen quite often when a 3-2 vote did not result in deletion but the talk of no consensus reached. Additionally, many individuals in the articles for deletion noted Jorge via MMAnote rather than MAnote [4]. At worst, I would like to have this article userfied. Thank you. CrazyAces489 (talk) 15:28, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rough Consensus on wikipedia is about balancing arguments against consensus not policy. So on one hand we had keep votes arguing against an inherent notability that didn't have a policy background and a delete side that was arguing that the subject did not meet the GNG/inclusion guideline because the sources were inadequate. The sources brought up in the discussion did not seem to meet the GNG so I was left with policy based arguments to delete and non-policy based arguments to keep. That gives a rough consensus to delete. I'm always happy to userfy. Where would you like it. Spartaz Humbug! 10:31, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fully disclosing my biases toward keep on this issue, I agree with CrazyAces489 that you made an erroneous decision on this one. I'm no admin, but the debate appears fully in the midst of no consensus, which as you well know, in deletion discussions, normally results in the article, page, image, or other content being kept. I find it confusing that you would say that the keep votes didn't have a specific policy foundation in mind when I specifically and intentionally addressed WP:BASIC as the guildeline (particularly because this was a bio) and then listed a recently published book, black belt magazine, and (least but not irreverently so) the BJJ heroes biography as sources which achieve this guideline. If, for whatever reason, you find the more prime WP:GNG to be the true standard of retention for this article, well I see no reason why it does not equivalently square with nor meet the standards set forth in WP:BASIC. I say this in due respect sir. Buddy23Lee (talk) 23:27, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm a bit confused BASIC is a simplification of the GNG, Please can you explain which sources are suitable to determine notability in this case? Thanks,. Spartaz Humbug! 06:21, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Good sir, I'm a bit flummoxed as to what it is about the glut of sources that ISN'T particularly suitable for you. Is it the "Significant coverage" or some other such sub-section of the GNG specifically? I believe that this source would have more than met that. I mention WP:BASIC specifically because this is (was) a biography and BASIC pertain to biographies specifically. Most critically is the section: "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial (as many of these sources admittedly were not), then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability, which the at least dozen or so sources DID in a non-trivial manner. Now I know I'm not a administrator, and I don't have the permissions nor presumably knowledge to adjudicate these affairs, but I do casually work on more than enough bios to know that when the majority of all biographies (take this as an example) are FAR less cited and left kept or otherwise unmolested clearly there is a double standard in effect here. Buddy23Lee (talk) 09:26, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    You can userfy it over here. I will update it and improve it. Buddy23Lee you can perform fixes to it as well. Make it a complete article. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:CrazyAces489/jorgegracie CrazyAces489 (talk) 16:24, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I would certainly contribute my efforts if this is made so. Buddy23Lee (talk) 19:52, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I would like to note that under https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Consensus#mediaviewer/File:Consensus_Flowchart.svg I did make further edits to the article and a chance for a consensus to be formed wasn't given even a day. CrazyAces489 (talk) 16:26, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    You brought the sources out in the discussion and they did not gain traction. The userfied article is at User:CrazyAces489/Jorge_Gracie. Spartaz Humbug! 04:41, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

John Barrowman

[edit]

Hi Spartaz. Thanks for your assistance on this article. Although no arguments have been advanced for why in talk, and certainly no strong consensus has been reached, we have an editor edit-warring tabloid material into the article. Shall I block, or will you? --John (talk) 19:58, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for contributing there. Two things; we should remember that consensus is not a head-count and we need to look at rationales rather than hand-waving. Although a few editors, some of them in good standing, have stated they are in favour of using a non-BLP-compliant source on a BLP, I think policy has to be a stronger argument than people voting without giving a rationale. BLPSOURCES is policy. Secondly, what do you think of this talk page section? --John (talk) 20:03, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lemusique (Andrea Temmeli Jr.)

[edit]

The page listed for this individual in the music industry arena not only was noteworthy, but actually had more references and current information than several other pages in the same category. It even went up for discussion in 5 different debate areas over the course of almost THIRTY days, and no one had anything negative to say except one person who, after comments were written after them, deleted the refuting comments. In following the guidelines of re-adding a page I am contacting you to help ensure that this page is left on Wikipedia as the subject is relevant to her industry. Also, as she is behind the scenes, it would be a terrible commentary that our encyclopedic information has been diluted to only being verifiable by online resources as some resources did not make it to the internet. (ex. a mayoral proclamation to Lemusique for a week of community events). I humbly beseech you to reconsider as the original editor that recommended for deletion himself did not delete the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Payroll.npr (talk • contribs) 15:21, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please don't recreate deleted articles. The article was deleted because the experienced users who commented felt the sourcing was inadequate. Please read WP:GNG to understand the rigorous sourcing required to maintain a wikipedia bio. Thanks. Spartaz Humbug! 04:49, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Only one person felt that way - the first person who commented as such helped me with the references and helped with the improvement of the article and his concerns were satisfied. The second person was concerned with ONE of the resources, and that was becuase he thought it was a reference for the wrong thing. The footnote was put in the correct spot, and that too was corrected and resolved. The sourcing were all from online feeds, magazine, a newspaper, and a filed city proclamation and met all guidelines. It is also more information than several of the people mentioned in the article as well that have current and approved pages. The guidelines for re-adding the page stated that it could be done if you contact hte person who delted it. And there were also 2 more sources that were added as well. This article was not deleted by a consensus, but by the minroty of two people - on of which was based on a footnote being in the wrong place which was corrected. And this is after the scrutiny of seven groups, of which only one other person had concerns, and then offered guidance to ensure the article was under all guidelines and properly sourced. This article deserves to stay. Payroll.npr (talk) 16:58, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/We All Want Love

[edit]

Hi. Only one person voted delete, I was keep, and others were redirect. So why did that result in a delete? Red Lipstick was redirected. So how can two AFDs with the same votes result in two different actions? No one elses vote on this AFD in particular apart from the delete was of any importance, clearly. In my opinion, one delete, one keep, and two redirects should have resulted in a redirect.  — ₳aron 17:12, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I didn't close the other one so i can't comment on it. The consensus here was that this didn't meet the GNG. No-one credibly argued that it should be kept. I don't object if you want to make a redirect. Spartaz Humbug! 17:18, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I did argue keep credibly and I believe that it did meet the criteria. IMO, the obvious course of action was a redirect, down the middle. Not enough people voiced an opinion for it to be kept as an open article or for it to be deleted outright.  — ₳aron 17:21, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Surely if your keep argument was that credible someone would agree with you instead of everyone else arguing that we didn't need this article and wavering between a delete and/or a redirect. I repeat, The argument was that this failed the GNG, Dual votes leave the closer some latitude which way to go and I generally close to the GNG if the consensus is not otherwise compelling. If you want a redirect feel free to make one. Spartaz Humbug! 17:27, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, because there was something else going on between other editors. I'm no fool to what goes on here on Wikipedia. I can't make the redirect when the article and it's history has been deleted, that is what my point is. I don't want to make a history-less redirect.  — ₳aron 17:30, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm sorry but I'm not interested in hearing insinuations without foundation. Spartaz Humbug! 17:49, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • My main point was that I don't see why you completely deleted it instead of simply redirecting it so that the history was maintained.  — ₳aron 18:11, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • Because it failed the GNG. Why would we want to keep it around if its not GNG compliant? Spartaz Humbug! 18:16, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
              • In your opinion, if failed GNG. Still don't see how two articles in the same situation can have two different outcomes.  — ₳aron 18:18, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
                • In my opinion as the closer meaning that I have been trusted by the community to make these calls. In the case of the other discussion, it was closed by a non-admin who did not have the facility to delete. In my opinion it was not one that a non-admin should have closed because the outcome wasn't cut and dried and there is a tendency in such closes for the non-admin to close in a direction that does not need tools. Also the discussion was not exactly identical. I had discounted your vote in this discussion because you were arguing to keep on a basis that was refuted in the discussion. In the other discussion you voted to redirect and this probably swung it for the closer. Its a finely balanced call in either direction. This is far from ideal but I doubt you would like me to void the NAC and reclose the other discussion. I'm quite reluctant to do that anyway because I do rather respect the non-admin closing it. In fact, I have been mulling over nominating them for adminship for some while . I'm not really sure why Northamerica1000 didn't close this one at the same time - it would have been better if they had. Um... decisions.. decisions... I'm not really invested in either outcome so I'm going to reclose as redirect and restore the history under the redirect. Give me 5 minutes. Spartaz Humbug! 18:48, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:John Barrowman

[edit]

I have unprotected. I wish you had been a bit more clear--that your not renewing protection was to be seen as a sign that you thought there was enough consensus. BTW, I'd appreciate it if you could explain to that one editor that the BLP and our admin tool is there to make those kinds of protections, and that article talk pages are not the right place for stirring up drama. It's pretty clear they're not listening to me. They're free to start something on ANI, of course, though I doubt that they'll try that. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 20:55, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kardashian Index

[edit]

I believe that you have interpreted the consensus incorrectly when closing this AfD [5] as delete, and I am asking you to undelete the article.

The proposer used the reasoning WP:Fringe to justify the AfD. However, as was pointed out in the discussion, Fringe does not apply in this case because the subject did not in any way contradict established science. An argument to delete based on those grounds should have been dismissed. The second advocate for deletion stated that there was only one source. However, twelve more sources were identified during the discussion (including undoubtedly usable ones like Smithonian Magazine and USA Today) negating that editor’s opinion. The third advocate for deletion merely said that he agreed with the deletion reasoning of that previous editor and that of the proposer, adding nothing new to the discussion. The fourth proposer for deletion also brought no argument of his own to the discussion, merely quoting my own words, words which I had withdrawn as being incorrect. In closing this AfD, did you properly consider the strength of the arguments to keep and the weaknesses revealed in the arguments to delete? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:46, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:38, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AFD close on Kledo Creek Provincial Park

[edit]

Hey, i am surprised with your close as "Keep", at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kledo Creek Provincial Park. I think the best decision would have been Redirect (to the list-article's section on former parks), and that was where the consensus was at. Pinging User:Fredlyfish4 too. It doesn't matter terribly, but I think i or Fredlyfish4 would like to redirect the Kledo Creek Provincial Park article, and I wouldn't want to have controversy going against an AFD decision. Did you really mean Keep separately, and you're against redirecting? Your close statement was ... short. :) --doncram 16:15, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Closing as keep reflects the balance of the arguments in the discussion but is without prejudice to an editorial decision to redirect Spartaz Humbug! 06:42, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was somewhat surprised by the result as well. I thought that the recommendations had moved from a polar delete/keep discussion toward a consensus at redirect. I am not concerned, but I do agree with User:doncram. On the other hand, I greatly appreciate all of the work you have clearly provided to Wikipedia and defer to your judgment.--Rpclod (talk) 19:52, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, i am understanding Spartaz as not being opposed to redirect. Take it as feedback, Spartaz, that the usual meaning of a "Keep" close is understood by others (at least me and Rpclod) to mean "keep and do not redirect". I am thinking that would be usual understanding. I think we have no real problem this time, though, and don't need to take it to AFD review or anything, as Spartaz has clarified he doesn't see redirect being a problem. thanks, Spartaz and Rpclod, for your consideration. --doncram 20:52, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AFD close on SourceFed hosts

[edit]

Why did you close the afd discussion on SourceFed hosts as a Delete? The only vote after the initial delete nomination (albiet it was mine, and I did create the article) was keep. I'm surprised that you closed it instead of extending the discussion or simply closing it as a no consensus. Soulbust (talk) 21:02, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Additionally, although there was never a vote for a redirect to SourceFed, I feel that if the article is not kept, it should then have a redirect to that article. However, I still feel as if there wasn't much of a discussion whether to delete or not. There was one initial nomination and my vote against the deletion. Nothing more, so how is that a sufficient amount of discussion to base a deletion or a keep on? Soulbust (talk) 21:07, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • There isn't really a quorum at AFD and for me your arguments lost weight when you acknowledged that a lot of the sources were primary sources. You also clearly do not understand what is required to source an article because you were citing the Huffington Post as a source when the only HP references in the article are an interview by Ross Everett which counts for nothing as a its a primary source and the other is a link to Ross Everett's news years resolutions which is again a primary souce and SourceFed isn't mentioned in the Huffington Post at all. The argument that you were link spamming was therefore clearly valid and is policy based. To survive on wikipedia an article needs to meet the GNG which requires detailed secondary sources about the subject of the article. Do you have those sources? Thanks. Spartaz Humbug! 07:53, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies

[edit]

I see you aren't really to blame, because your actions were indicative of an exclusive autocratic self-glorified club known as Wikipedia, where Wiki-auocrats decide what information is and isn't important. Simply put, it's bullshit, but I was wrong to blame it all on you. The truth is, the whole fucking site is to blame, so fuck Wikipedia.BlueManGroupie (talk) 17:05, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Creation of previously deleted article

[edit]

I wish to create an article for Cork County Cricket Club, which was previously deleted (see here). The article was deleted on the ground that the club was not playing at the highest level of club cricket in Ireland (namely Division 1), but rather in Division 2. The club, however, has now been promoted to Division 1, thus the reason for the previous deletion is no longer valid. There are articles for all the other clubs in the top division. When I began to create the article, a message told me to "please first contact the deleting administrator", hence this message. Mooretwin (talk) 08:58, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Belle Knox AFD #2

[edit]

The second AFD for Belle Knox has been overturned and relisted. As you commented on the original AFD, you may wish to comment on this one as well. As there have been developments and sources created since the time of the original AFD, please review to see if your comments/!vote are the same or may have changed. Gaijin42 (talk)

Talkback

[edit]
Hello, Spartaz. You have new messages at Northamerica1000's talk page.
Message added 20:31, 30 September 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

NorthAmerica1000 20:31, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Creation of previously deleted article

[edit]

I wish to create an article for Cork County Cricket Club, which was previously deleted (see here). The article was deleted on the ground that the club was not playing at the highest level of club cricket in Ireland (namely Division 1), but rather in Division 2. The club, however, has now been promoted to Division 1, thus the reason for the previous deletion is no longer valid. There are articles for all the other clubs in the top division. When I began to create the article, a message told me to "please first contact the deleting administrator", hence this message. Mooretwin (talk) 08:58, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • does this club now pass the GNG? If it doesn't the precedent for footballers is for them to actually play first. Dunno that this is so relevant to a club. Please consult wiki project cricket for an opinion on that. Thanks.

Recreation

[edit]

Can you do a recreation of this article as per [6]. Thank you. CrazyAces489 (talk) 06:33, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relistings of AfDs

[edit]

Hi. Sorry to bother you, but I noticed that you relisted a couple AfDs ( this and this ) where the number and weight of opinions seems clearly indicating a consensus. Might I ask why did you instead decide to relist? Especially in the first one, it seems to me there is really no need of a relisting. --cyclopiaspeak! 17:55, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You were mentioned

[edit]

You were mentioned here regarding the hasty block on Ihardlythinkso. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 20:12, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • this would be the hasty action that you couldn't find time to discuss with me directly first? That seems rather hasty in itself... 20:39, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Halloween cheer!

[edit]
Happy Halloween!

Hello Spartaz:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!
    – NorthAmerica1000 05:07, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]



Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

RfA

[edit]

Hi Spartaz: After significant consideration, I have decided to move forward with another request for adminship, and I'm seeking nominators/co-nominators. Per your previous input regarding this matter, please see the Request for adminship discussion I have started on my user talk page. Thanks for your previous input, and I look forward to hearing from you. NorthAmerica1000 12:26, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

[edit]
Hello, Spartaz. You have new messages at Northamerica1000's talk page.
Message added 02:13, 2 November 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

NorthAmerica1000 02:13, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RfA page created

[edit]

Hi Spartaz: To facilitate your anticipated RfA nomination, I have created the RfA page, located at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Northamerica1000 2. In this manner, you can add your nomination directly to the page. As a reminder, please do not transclude it to the main RfA page, because I don't want the discussion to become live until November 15, 2014. Thanks again! NorthAmerica1000 03:58, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi, I noticed that you deleted Perry Finnbogason after AfD, but did not remove the entry for that page at Perry (given name). Please note that is is part of the process recommended at WP:AFDAI.

Please excuse me if you normally do this but overlooked this one. Best wishes – Fayenatic London 11:26, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bedford Modern School, sockpuppets and WP:DRV

[edit]

A rather obvious sock drawer involving Bristolbottom has just been cleared out. Its sole purpose seems to have been to AfD biogs of Bedford Modern School alumni. Although many went to AfD, I can only see two that were actually deleted.

I intend to have their deletions reviewed, mostly on the grounds of WP:DENY.

I'm not familiar with these articles, can't see them and took no part in their AfDs. At first sight, I'm inclined to endorse deletion of Herbert Roff Newton but I think that there's a case to be made for keeping Richard Howe as a MC holder and also senior on the escape committee at Colditz.

Any thoughts? Andy Dingley (talk) 11:52, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bedford Modern School, sockpuppets and WP:DRV

[edit]

A rather obvious sock drawer involving Bristolbottom has just been cleared out. Its sole purpose seems to have been to AfD biogs of Bedford Modern School alumni. Although many went to AfD, I can only see two that were actually deleted.

I intend to have their deletions reviewed, mostly on the grounds of WP:DENY.

I'm not familiar with these articles, can't see them and took no part in their AfDs. At first sight, I'm inclined to endorse deletion of Herbert Roff Newton but I think that there's a case to be made for keeping Richard Howe as a MC holder and also senior on the escape committee at Colditz.

Any thoughts? Andy Dingley (talk) 11:52, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bedford Modern School, sockpuppets and WP:DRV

[edit]

A rather obvious sock drawer involving Bristolbottom has just been cleared out. Its sole purpose seems to have been to AfD biogs of Bedford Modern School alumni. Although many went to AfD, I can only see two that were actually deleted.

I intend to have their deletions reviewed, mostly on the grounds of WP:DENY.

I'm not familiar with these articles, can't see them and took no part in their AfDs. At first sight, I'm inclined to endorse deletion of Herbert Roff Newton but I think that there's a case to be made for keeping Richard Howe as a MC holder and also senior on the escape committee at Colditz.

Any thoughts? Andy Dingley (talk) 11:52, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bedford Modern School, sockpuppets and WP:DRV

[edit]

A rather obvious sock drawer involving Bristolbottom has just been cleared out. Its sole purpose seems to have been to AfD biogs of Bedford Modern School alumni. Although many went to AfD, I can only see two that were actually deleted.

I intend to have their deletions reviewed, mostly on the grounds of WP:DENY.

I'm not familiar with these articles, can't see them and took no part in their AfDs. At first sight, I'm inclined to endorse deletion of Herbert Roff Newton but I think that there's a case to be made for keeping Richard Howe as a MC holder and also senior on the escape committee at Colditz.

Any thoughts? Andy Dingley (talk) 11:52, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

[edit]

Thanks again for your time and work in providing your RfA nomination. Your nomination, along with that of User:Yunshui and User:RoySmith, was greatly appreciated. NorthAmerica1000 19:08, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Request to review Deleted Article

[edit]

Good day Spartaz, the article for Valeri Lilov Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tiger_Lilov was deleted due to what I believe to be notability, non-alignment with the Wikipedia policy, as well as sockpuppetry during the discussions. I would like to request for a review and consideration for recreation of the article with simple facts aligned to the Wiki policies. The person has since been confirmed by the International Chess Federation ([[7]]) to be an International Master, which would qualify for notability. Thank you --Rtweb1 (talk) 09:26, 3 December 2014 (UTC) Reference on profile: http://ratings.fide.com/card.phtml?event=2906597[reply]

I don't see any indications that being an IM is an automatic pass for notability. Indeed that argument was rejected in the AfD. chess isn't mentioned in the Notability guidelines so we are left with the gng. Perhaps you know of a definitive discussion about this elsewhere that I am not aware off? Spartaz Humbug! 21:14, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply. What I was asking for is to create a simple article with no embellishments. Just the same as most of the IM pages, short simple, and concise. If notability was not an issue, then, I would like to humbly request for your guidance and recommendation on way forward. If you wish/require, I can send you the short suggested article for preview. Thank you once more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rtweb1 (talk • contribs) 05:11, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We already decided we were not going to have this page. If you want to bring it back you need to find some sources that fully meet the GNG as linked above. Until you have those sources there is no helpful advice to provide. Spartaz Humbug! 07:49, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Spartaz . Thank you once more for your advice. --Rtweb1 (talk) 14:58, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notification malfunction

[edit]

You missed a "l" on [8]; I added it, but wanted to let you know because I think that means the "ping" isn't going to function. NE Ent 15:36, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Technical13

[edit]

Please let the dispute be over. What you are currently doing serves no good purpose and has a lot of drawbacks. Please let it be over. Jehochman Talk 22:50, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seasonal Greets!

[edit]
Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2015 !!!

Hello Spartaz, May you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New year 2015.
Happy editing,
NorthAmerica1000 14:38, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Precious again

[edit]

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

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

A year ago, you were the 326th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:58, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ronald Duncan (martial arts)

[edit]

You closed Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 October 1#Ron Duncan and so I wondered if you would be a good person to help at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ronald Duncan (martial arts) (2nd nomination). Thincat (talk) 10:39, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy

[edit]

Can you userfy this article for me. Ronald Duncan (martial arts) (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ronald Duncan (martial arts) (2nd nomination)) Thanks.CrazyAces489 (talk) 21:17, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Socialist Alternative (Malaysia)

[edit]

I understand this is the place to discuss your decision to delete Socialist Alternative (Malaysia) at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Socialist Alternative (Malaysia). I wrote the article in good faith as I felt it filled a gap in Wikipedia. It was one of only seven of the forty five affiliates of the Committee for a Workers' International (CWI) that did not have its own page; and now is the only party on the List of Trotskyist organizations by country which does not have an entry. In Malaysia the same party has been in power since independence and the arrest and beating of anti government activists is often reported by Amnesty.[1] [2] The Sedition Act 1948 criminalizes a wide array of acts, including those “with a tendency to excite disaffection against any Ruler or government”. [3] This lack of democratic practice is another reason that organised political groups in Malaysia are notable. Restricting proof of notability to these politically biased sources is taking Wikipedia's rules to an extreme.

The debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Socialist Alternative (Malaysia) centred around references to make it notable. My references were from two sources affiliated to the CWI and the CWI's own site. I contended these are independent of each other and have editorial integrity. The wikipedia Politics of Malaysia article states that: The national media are largely controlled by the government and by political parties in the Barisan Nasional/National Front ruling coalition and the opposition has little access to the media. It also mentions that "Students are not allowed to be involved in politics, due to the University and University College Act." I have since found another source of reference to Socialist Alternative in the Encyclopaedia of Trotskyism where the group is mentioned as the Malaysian affiliate of the CWI. [4] The encyclopaedia is completely independent of the CWI. The last comment in the discussion was about the lack of recent articles on their website. It appears they are now using a different site which is updated regularly. [5] I hope that because of this new information you will be kind enough to reverse your decision. Vahvistus (talk) 01:00, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seasonal Greets!

[edit]
Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2015!!!

Hello Spartaz, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2015.
Happy editing,
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:01, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of {{U|Technical 13}} to all registered users whom have commented on his talk page. To prevent receiving future messages, please follow the opt-out instructions on User:Technical 13/Holiday list

Question on AfD close

[edit]

Could you take a look at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/A_Throne_of_Bones? Was this a copy 'n' paste error? You have the article being redirected to Theodora Beale, which is a redlink and wasn't brought up at AfD.

Thanks,

Lesser Cartographies (talk) 14:06, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question on Deletion of Valentina Seferinova

[edit]

Please let me know the reasons for deletion. No notification received when deleted this morning. Is that standard procedure? Thanking you in anticipation. Regards User:Visb723 22:46, 26 December 2014 (GMT)

  • its perfectly normal. I understood from the discussion that the article was written using unfree text from her album covers. That's not permitted under our license so the article had to go even before we looked at whether the subject meets our inclusion standard. You can find out more by reading WP:C. Spartaz Humbug! 01:19, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question on Deletion

[edit]

I think Anita yadav should have wiki page. There are so many women working in nepal does not have coverage. Ms yadav is doing so much work for society thats is no looked by commercial media. In my opinion it is unfair to delete the page despite she is a well known public figure in Nepal . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anita_Yadav

damauli (talk) 20:16, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article is back, this time as a legal threat. Creator is a not the same account. Meters (talk) 07:16, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedied and salted. Meters (talk) 07:59, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Holidays!

[edit]

Close on Puffin AfD

[edit]

Thanks. It's always good to see an admin who goes for policy over nose-counting, no matter how many editors claim that the GNG shouldn't apply to their favorite fields of article. Have a good one. Nha Trang Allons! 21:37, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmation

[edit]

This is just to confirm that you're on the panel that will close the Cultural Marxism AfD. Black Kite has recused himself, so we're waiting on a third administrator. Samwalton9 is also on the panel. RGloucester — ☎ 17:22, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year

[edit]
Happy New Year !!!
Michael Q. Schmidt talkback is wishing you Season's Greetings! This message celebrates the holiday season, promotes WikiLove, and hopefully makes your day a little better. Spread the seasonal good cheer by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and aHappy New Year, whether it be someone with whom you had disagreements in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Share the good feelings. - MQS

Happy New Year Spartaz!

[edit]
Happy New Year!

Spartaz,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. NorthAmerica1000 01:38, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2015}} to user talk pages.

Note

[edit]

User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz has twice reverted your closure of the ANI thread. Tutelary (talk) 22:45, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year!

[edit]

Dear Spartaz,
HAPPY NEW YEAR Hoping 2015 will be a great year for you! Thank you for your contributions!
From a fellow editor,
--FWiW Bzuk (talk)

This message promotes WikiLove. Originally created by Nahnah4 (see "invisible note").

Issues at ANI/Rebecca 1990 close

[edit]

Apparently there were edit conflicts with posts made while you were closing this discussion. The discussion wasn't closed when I began to post, wasn't closed after I posted, and I didn't get an ec notice. I don't care greatly about my post, but Tutelary also reverted the response from another editor. I can't clean it up myself (no cut/paste) because I'm stuck on a clumsy mobile device due to weird ISP dysfunctions, but I don't think Tutelary should be removing the response by an editor they attacked. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 22:56, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the post because he was posting in a closed section. Yours as well, you should not be reverting an administrator's close without a significant reason for it. Tutelary (talk) 23:06, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You should not be violating WP:AGF. There's nothing indicating this was anything more than a standard edit conflict problem; the facts that both posts removed were criticisms of your misbehavior indicates you shouldn't have unilaterally reverted. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 23:33, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You removed the archive notice from it, along with the HAB thingy (the end of the archive thing) to post your comment. Although not intentional, you removed the archive and posted in it anyways, and I reverted and you reverted back; meaning you deliberately did it the second time. Tell me, why do you think you have the authority to undermine an admin's close of a blocked sock's frivolous complaint? Tutelary (talk) 00:24, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I just believe practice has been that ec-snarled comments like these are removed or allowed by the closer, not by an involved user. Sorry you'redragged into the kerfluffle. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 00:18, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Gotta like it when that happens! --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 20:10, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User page comments

[edit]

Spartaz, I responded to your comment on my user page (User talk:Oiyarbepsy/2014B#Previous Accounts) and then brainlessly archived it because of the year switchover. I wasn't trying to hide the response from you or anyone else. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 15:54, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Any help

[edit]

Would be appreciated. I have simply been making small articles that I believe are notable. Many of them are notable according to MANOTE. (https://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/pages/index.php?user=CrazyAces489&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia&namespace=0&redirects=noredirects) I am unsure of the format that is required. I learned about ref list recently and was shown a tool about how to format the majority of them. [9] I am working on a few articles here. [10] . Most of the article I am working on in userspace are full of citations and are long, but I believe may be troublesome in mainspace. Also I read on Wikipedia, that a NY Times Obituary is always viewed as being a reliable source. Is that the case or was it sarcasm? A few of these articles are empty and I wanted to delete them, but don't know how. CrazyAces489 (talk) 09:50, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I personally consider obits as reliable sources and strong evidence that notability is likely to be met but not everyone agrees with me on this. If you give me a list of pages you want rid off I'll delete them for you. Also happy to review some pages and advise whether they are ready. MMNOTE isn't widely accepted so better to work to GNG BIO. Spartaz Humbug! 11:48, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • These three need to be deleted. [11] [12] and [13]. The DRV can be closed, as I have found the previously added information on Jerome mackey. I have also added a bit more concerning his religious organization. CrazyAces489 (talk) 20:10, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I finally got access to this article. [14] Page 13, I believe this is the nail in the coffin to make Ron Duncan pass GNG and MANOTE. I will work on it, bring it to mainspace, bring forth an AFD, and hopefully it will pass. Is the obituary or article dedicated to him on black belt magazine notable enough?

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Socialist Alternative (Malaysia)

[edit]

I would like to carry on editing that article in my sandbox. Is it possible for you to put it there. Vahvistus (talk) 10:50, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Dykstra

[edit]

You were a part of a deletion debate on a model named Jessica Dykstra. I've become facebook friends with her, and have found out that she will be in the upcoming Sports Illustrated Swimsuit edition. I believe that makes her notable, along with the other work she's done since the article was deleted.

Is there any way I can retrieve the original article that was deleted?--Johnny Spasm (talk) 10:59, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tube Bar (album)

[edit]

I am trying to get the Tube Bar related albums restored as I was away and busy during the debate. They were deleted as not notable and for personal gain (i.e. selling mp3s) etc. which is not true as I am not connected with them in anyway. I worked very hard on adding the albums and making them as best as I could. Indeed they may get deleted and are not notable if we can't find any references, but I would like the chance to re-open the debate and add additional references.

I was able to get some restored on [[15]] as toykogirl79 told me I should ask you concerning this one. Again if an article is simply not notable (in this albums) and I can't find enough of sources and it gets deleted that's sine, but I would like the opportunity to do so. Concerning this particular album it is probably the most well known and if any should remain, it would be this. I do have a lot of re-writing to do with it.

One of those things I hate to be a waste of time unless it truly fails notability. I appreciate it if you could restore it, at least to my userspace.

Thank you. Tyros1972 Talk 12:55, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • The deleted article is now at User:Tyros1972/Tube Bar (album). Until you have found some decent secondary reliable sources that discuss the album in depth thu~s article will never be suitable for mainspace. If you find sources please discuss with me or ask DRV if I am not around. It would be a mistake to restore the article without getting the sources reviewed. The evidence is that you don't have enough experience of how we assess notability to make a call on that yourself. Spartaz Humbug! 23:04, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for moving that. Honestly I would like to save the aricle(s) but have them merged, is that possible? Besides that there is Tavern Tour, Tube Bar Collector's Edition, Drunk, Dirty and Disgraceful, Tube Bar Red's Bootleg Tape (Remastered) and Tube Bar Prank Calls 35th Anniversary Complete Collection. I have added the most sources I can find and think a merge if possible with the main article Tube Bar prank calls would be best? What do you suggest? Tyros1972 Talk 21:43, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 January 16#William Sullivant Vanderbilt Allen

[edit]

Your peremptory close of this DRV seems improper because:

  1. WP:DRV states that "A nominated page should remain on deletion review for at least seven days" and the discussion was only open for about 100 minutes.
  2. Acting peremptorily seems unnecessary when the page in question had already been discussed at AFD, including copyright consideration, and was then left in mainspace for months without comment or problem. Why should people not even be allowed to discuss it?
  3. After stating your own opinion of the matter, you were then WP:INVOLVED and so should not close the discussion. Referring to me by my alternate account name also seems to suggest some personal antipathy or other motive, which also indicates breach of WP:INVOLVED.

So, please revert your close. Andrew D. (talk) 00:06, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I have no objection to this running the full length. When I pointed Andrew to DRV, I'd intended to make a statement asking it not to be closed early. (As an aside - what revision of the article had an infobox?) —Cryptic 01:08, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Its a copy vio so clearly isn't going to be restored. There is absolutely no history of DRV keeping such nominations open for 7 days. Go check the archives, requests that are clearly going to fail on that basis are always closed early. And yes second sight shows no infobox. Which makes the article worse as 100% of the text is a "quotation". Just recreate a copyvioless article and spend less time carping about process. Spartaz Humbug! 06:37, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I had plans to work on several topics this morning but, instead, here we are continuing this process discussion. If the idea of the extraordinary close was to minimise drama and discussion then it is, in fact, proving counter-productive. But I don't plan to go wading through archives. If Spartaz thinks there ought to be a speedy DRV process then he should please arrange for it to be discussed and documented. I have cited the current DRV process and Spartaz has not followed it.
The issue of there being little content at stake is not decisive because there is more to an article than its plain text: there is also the authorship, the formatting, the links, the categories, the sources, the timing, &c. I am well aware of this because I frequently create new articles and find it takes considerable time to get all the elements nicely assembled - the writing of the text is the easy part. Spartaz does not seem to do this so much but, when I check for something similar, I find Habib Essid - another stubby bio. In that case, someone also dumped a block of copied text into the article. In that case, Spartaz did not take extraordinary measures to remove this from the edit history of the page; he just reverted the addition and moved on.
As a further personal example, when I woke this morning, I had a quick browse on my tablet in bed - a modern vice which keeps me away from the stack of books waiting to be read, alas. I took a look at Wikipedia's main page and liked a couple articles there (M.U.L.E. is back!). I went to their article histories to thank the authors. The original creator of one article just seems to be an occasional editor and perhaps the thanks will encourage him to do more. This is an example of how the edit history may be used to further our general goals. In the RfA which triggered this round of drama, this was my theme - that the way in which marginal editors is treated is significant. This deletion seems to have been done deliberately to obfuscate this point as no-one seemed to care about the page before then. Being difficult about reinstating the page compounds this.
One further point is that admins such as Spartaz and Cryptic may not fully appreciate the disruption which such hasty deletion causes because they are not themselves inconvenienced — they are able to see deleted pages regardless. When working on marginal content, I find the work is made more difficult than it ought be because of the constant risk that everything may be deleted in an instant. I wasn't actually expecting it in this case, as the page had already been given a reasonable review at AFD and, having found the topic in Britannica, further improvement was in sight. So, while I recall that the creator had created another article, I can't remember what it was or who they were. I could do some detective work to find out, but this would be an unnecessary chore as userfication would make all this information readily available.
That will do for now, but Spartaz should please understand that I am not willing to let this drop. High-handed and peremptory deletion seems to require that there be proper accountability for our good governance and so it goes ...
Andrew D. (talk) 11:02, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome to do anything you like about this and threats don't influence me at all. Out of interest, how long did it take you to look through my edit history to look at an edit that took place 4 years ago? The twin situations are not at all the same by the way. Every revision of the deleted article contained the copyvio text and when the entitrely of an article is non-free text that is not a quotation or a permissable fair use application but a stonking great violation of our copyright policy. Policy in such cases is clear - that you delete if there is no free version to revert to. In the case you referred to, I restored a previously non-copyvioed version of the article which was not an option. In terms of time and effort, how much less effort would it have taken you to open the copyvioed text, read the contend and write a new article based on that text but in a way that did not violate the original authors rights? Considerably less then it took you to find a single edit of mine going back 4 year. I'm afraid you are making yourself look ridiculous and I have no intention of wasting another second of my time on this. Take me to arbcom, ANI, DRV, I don't care, but don't waste my time. Spartaz Humbug! 12:10, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It took me just a minute or two to find the example of Habib Essid. I wanted to see some examples of your own article creations, as evidence of my supposition that they were comparatively rare. I viewed your contribution history, filtering this to see only page creations in article space. This gave a concentrated page of hits back to 2006. Most of the recent activity seemed to be redirects or other admin-related activity so I skimmed through these to find the first proper article and the first case I noticed was Habib Essid. I checked the edit history for that and noticed the copyvio revert, which I hadn't been looking for, but which seemed relevant. It has probably taken me longer to explain the process than to do it. It is good to compare techniques of this sort as Wikipedia is quite complex and its interface keeps changing and developing. I used to use the Xtools gadget but that was broken recently because of some Labs snafu and so I starting using other method.
I have not decided on the next step. I considered reverting your close per WP:BRD or suggesting to some other party such as Cryptic that they do so. I might start another DRV and see what happens. I'm not keen on going to AN as the admin corps will just circle the wagons and get out their boomerangs. Arbcom is a possibility but we need to exhaust all other options first. And I'm open to other suggestions... Andrew D. (talk) 12:42, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Don't feel like you need to waste your valuable time notifying me when you have made a decision. I have every confidence that process will work its way through without needing any input from me. Spartaz Humbug! 13:37, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sehrawat deletion

[edit]

Hi Spartaz, you deleted Sehrawat on 1 July 2013. Could you move a copy of the article to user:Ibn Battuta/Sehrawat, please? As I link to it from my user page as part of my "AFANAAT"s, I'm curious about the original article. Besides, if I'm able (not at all sure!!), I may be interested in re-working it at a later date (right now I'm too busy offline) or ask others for help to bring it up to Wikipedia standards. No promises though. :o) BTW, was there any deletion discussion beyond this sentence? Just curious about criticism that should be taken into account if I choose to work on the article. Thanks, Ibn Battuta (talk) 12:33, 1 February 2015 (UTC) Edited the link above to my user space. Ibn Battuta (talk) 19:50, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Done. FWIW my original deletion was a soft one and I'm not convinced it was eligible for the subsequent G4. Seeing as the creator of the second article is blocked there may be additional reasoning. Spartaz Humbug! 20:07, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The creator of the second version was a sock of the prolific MrPontiac1. The single source in the restored version is one of the most notorious examples of mirroring by Gyan Publishers, as Moonriddengirl would tell you. It is probably listed at WP:MIRROR; I have some general notes at User:Sitush/Common#Gyan. I maintain a list of "awkward" articles just in case I spot something while reading-up on another related topic. Based on that, the subject remains non-notable. - Sitush (talk) 20:13, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me... what's a "soft" deletion (sounds very cuddly), and what's a G4? Anyways, thanks for moving it! Alas, it does look quite insubstantial... --Ibn Battuta (talk) 19:50, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Pling... ;o) Still curious about soft deletions and G4: Ibn Battuta (talk) 11:35, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
soft deletion. G4 is the code for speedy deleting something because it was previously deleted after a discussion. I don't think it should apply to a Soft delete as soft specifically means the consensus wasn't clear but there were no objections. Spartaz Humbug! 20:42, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the explanation! :o) Well, I agree the procedure was probably a bit "questionable," but given the article was really quite poor, I can understand the outcome... Well, I'll see if I can do something when I'm going to be less busy in a few weeks time. Anyways, thanks again for your help! --Ibn Battuta (talk) 22:25, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Using confidential information

[edit]

(ec) Dear Spartaz,

If you have information gleaned from your access to OTRS, or when you were in private discussions with me several years ago in order to help me, you have an ethical responsibility to not use that information to make public attacks against me.

If you have allegations to make about me, please make them here on Wikipedia or on Wikimedia Commons where I might be able to respond with facts, rather than using Wikipediocracy with the apparent expectation that anything you say there, will have no repercussions on your rights on Wikimedia projects.

I have had no interaction with you for years, so I have no idea why you might feel I am provoking you now. Perhaps you could provide me the basic human dignity to be able to move on from mistakes of the past and spend your volunteer time on something positive, rather that finding nasty ways to hound me?

Thanks --Fæ (talk) 12:23, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • 1. It is not a breach of the privacy policy to forward an email to the arbitration committee - especially when they keep a register of previous accounts for users who have clean started and want to register their previous accounts. What they do with that subsequently is their business.
  • 2. Has you not lied to me about your previous accounts this would not have got you into trouble later. As we had interacted during your previous tenure it is inconceivable that you would not have realised that I would want to know you were also Ash.
  • 3 You subsequently obtained adminship by deception by not disclosing that your previous account had been taken to RFC for their behavior on BLP subjects.
  • 4. When you were unmasked, I emailed the OTRS admins and queried why they had given access to privileged private information to someone who left en under a cloud of BLP opprobrium. Their response was unsatisfactory and I resigned my OTRS membership in response. Commenting on this does not require access to any privileged information as my memory is perfectly good thank you.
  • 5 In terms of leaving me alone, how many times do you tell your best buddy Russavia to leave me alone when he was using socks to harass me on my user page?
  • 6 By the same token, did you tell him to cease when he went through my uploads to commons and revenge nominated some of my images?
  • 7 By the same token, when you revenge nominated for deletion Kevin Rutherford's images in response to his taking OTRS action following your best buddy's global ban did you consider for one moment that you were displaying any of the behaviors that you are asking me to cease? *At least my actions are off wiki. Good day to you. Spartaz Humbug! 13:00, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Responses:

1 - I was not referring to this, only your posts on Wikipediocracy recently.
2 - I was not referring to these events dating back to 2009, it does not appear relevant to your actions now.
3 - I am sure people can refer to the Arbcom case for the facts if they wish. I did review the situation with a sitting Arbcom member before starting RFA, as you are aware.
4 - This is the first time I have heard about it. It seems a bit late to be digging this up now.
5 - I know nothing about this, your page was not even on my watch-list until today.
6 - No, I was not even aware of "revenge nominations". If I ever commented in a DR related to this, it was not as part of any pattern and I do not recall ever doing so. I do not watch everything you do on Commons, nor did I watch everything Russavia did. I am not Russavia, nor do I take responsibility for his actions. If you wish to have my help on Commons, please leave me a note there.
7 - I briefly looked at Ktr101's contributions to assess if he was active as an OTRS volunteer on Commons. The copyright violations seemed blatant to my eyes, shocking for an OTRS volunteer granting verification tickets to images. This was self-evident even looking at the first 20 thumbnails, some of which had been marked as copyright problems previously. Commons is short of experienced copyright reviewers, when we spot problems we ought to mark it for review, it is not like I was deleting them on sight, I am leaving the review to others. If you wish to discuss Ktr101's uploads to Commons, I suggest that happens on Commons.

Your 7 responses appear to avoid the central issue, which is how you are now using Wikipediocracy to hound me. You appear to be making statements based on a time when you had privileged trusted rights and using this history to paint the worst picture of me possible. If you have allegations to make, please make them directly to me as you have above and at least then I can ask you to link to the sources for any assertions you make and respond to those facts.

Again, you are digging through history, some of which is 7 years old and the most recent is now 3 years old. It would be good if we could both move on rather than rehashing all this nasty crud, most of which I have forgotten as I have been busy with a great deal of positive work since.

Thanks --Fæ (talk) 13:19, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • In terms of avoiding the central issue you seem to have missed the point that past actions are still relevant when you continue the offending behaviours. Since the matter we are discussing is not on-wiki there is no further need to discuss this on my talk page. Good day to you. Spartaz Humbug! 13:29, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I do not know what you mean by "offending behaviours". If you have evidence that I am breaking policies or behaving in an uncivil or unmellow way on Commons or Wikipedia, please take the evidence to the relevant administrator's noticeboard or to Arbcom. Being hounded by you for years on Wikipediocracy is not an appropriate or ethical way for a trusted Wikimedian to address concerns they have with another volunteer, and the only impact it has is to cause me personal upset. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 13:46, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • P.S. I see you are now promoting this discussion on Wikipediocracy. It is a pity that you are more interested in seeking some sort of revenge against me there, by feeding some highly unpleasant trolls (far, far more unpleasant than Russavia) rather than addressing any concerns you may have using our perfectly good community agreed policies on this project. With regard to the implication you have given there that I was somehow manipulating the text here, I edited a reply and saved it only seeing your text afterwards. I have no idea how this happened, but to avoid any possible confusion I marked it as "(ec)". As far as I recall, the changes were trivial and made no difference whatsoever to your reply. --Fæ (talk) 14:19, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep me out of any discussion here, thank you all very much. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:52, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Blake

[edit]

Yeah, I guess I should have done that in the first place. Thanks for fixing it though. This is Paul (talk) 22:01, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Madison Ivy

[edit]

Hey there, you deleted Madison Ivy a few weeks back and listed "Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion" as the reason. The last time the article was deleted was over a year ago, and in this time, a lot has happened, qualifying the article for Wikipedia. WP:PORNBIO lists

  • Has won a well-known and significant industry award. Madison Ivy has von an XBIZ Award in 2014 and has been nominated for a number of XBIZ, AVN and other awards, which definitely qualify as "significant" checkY
  • Has made unique contributions to a specific pornographic genre, such as beginning a trend in pornography; starred in an iconic, groundbreaking or blockbuster feature; or is a member of an industry Hall of Fame such as the AVN Hall of Fame, XRCO Hall of Fame or equivalent. Ivy is the only female contract star for pornographic production company Brazzers, has starred in many groundbreaking productions (e.g. This Ain’t Beverly Hills 90210 XXX, Slutty and Sluttier, etc.) and has the most viewed video on the Brazzers site. checkY
  • Has been featured multiple times in notable mainstream media. A quick look at the articles sources shows, she has given many important interviews and has been featured in various magazines multiple times: XCRITIV [[16]], Fox Magazine [[17]], Hustler [[18]], 88 Miles West [[19]] and many more. checkY

The article clearly qualifies all the points, so I would kindly ask you to restore it. Thanks in advance! --Rayukk (talk) 12:40, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm afraid you must have read an older version as PORNBIO as the current guideline makes it clear that scene related awards don't count and neither do nominations anymore. I don't recognise being a contract star or having lots of video views as meeting #2 and for your third point I don't see that any of these sources are reliable sources for notability by Wikipedia standards. My judgement was that Ivy still doesn't the GNG or PORNBIO and as such the previous deletion for lack of notability remains valid. You are welcome to try Deletion review if you like. Spartaz Humbug! 21:51, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, well I guess there is no point in arguing then... could you provide me with the version of the article it was in, before it was deleted? I would like to keep it on my user space, in case she really does meet the conditions one day, it was quite a bit of work :D... If you could, please move it here: User:Rayukk/Madison Ivy. Thanks --Rayukk (talk) 10:43, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
DoneSpartaz Humbug! 16:33, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Science and technology

[edit]

I suspect the people at AFD and DRV didn't really understand that "science and technology" is a general term of art not just the conjunction of two words. Anyway, the new Science and technology looks quite nice to me though I hope we don't do the same to Research and development or, indeed, Tom and Jerry. However, a bot has come along telling us we should disambiguate incoming links[20] and I expect it will have consequences for articles containing the incoming links and for people adding links in future. I doubt whether changing the links to "science and technology" makes sense. Maybe remove these links entirely since we now have nothing to say worth saying. Do you know how all this will affect what DPL bot does and do you have any remedial suggestions generally? Thincat (talk) 20:36, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Thincat (talk) 21:11, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:MrRee333/Marissa Roberto

[edit]

I'm curious why, when you closed Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Marissa_Roberto_.28closed.29, you didn't delete User:MrRee333/Marissa Roberto? As far as I can tell, it's a clear violation of both copyright and BLP policy. Putting something in user space doesn't make it exempt from those policies. @MrRee333: @Bearcat: -- RoySmith (talk) 15:42, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Users are allowed to maintain "draft" versions of future articles in their own userspace, if the page still needs further work to become includable in mainspace — but, of course, those drafts aren't allowed to stick around permanently if they remain not up to snuff and/or violate Wikipedia's content policies. I have my sincere doubts that MrRee333 is actually going to be able to locate a WP:GNG-satisfying level of referencing for either Marissa Roberto or the other two past hosts of the same program whom I've also listed for AFD — but since he was informed of what the problems were with the original version and clearly communicated the intention to work on them relatively immediately, I remain convinced that it was appropriate to give him the opportunity to at least try to repair the problems. That said, he's only made one edit to Wikipedia in the entire week since I restored the page, and that was to the Jones/Lucas AFD discussion rather than any of the articles or drafts involved — so given that the page is still in a non-compliant state after the same amount of time it would have lasted if it were in articlespace and up for AFD, I have no objections to its redeletion. Bearcat (talk) 17:40, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Karl Geis

[edit]

Can you move to Karl Geis (judo) to Karl Geis . Thank you. CrazyAces489 (talk) 16:37, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Moving a page during a deletion discussion can be considered distruptive but I'll happily do this if the page survives. Remind me after this closes. Spartaz Humbug! 20:20, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Georgia Jones

[edit]

I am confused as to why you must delete everything. I am working closely with Miss Georgia Jones the (pornagrafic actress) on building a factual wiki page. After I figured out the difficulties of actually getting through your redicules rules. Which I might add SEVERAL wiki pages have false information on them. WHAT EXATLY do we need to build her Wikipedia page. To not be deleted. She asked me to make it, I spent hours & finally got no alerts, woke up & it was gone. How much more reliable can you get when the info comes from her. She even posted in my please don't delete this page because I gave her my log in. I need to know where the pornbio rules are. & WHAT "NEW" info & "reliable" "source" qualifies to get her page up & stay on the Internet. Ok so I read books, magazines, videos don't count. Apparently all people care about is her relationship with Charlie Sheen. She herself is writing a short bio on that to add to the page. Being I am building the MOST RELIABLE wiki page out there because I'm getting all the info from Georgia Jones herself, I would appreciate any help & co ooeration to get this page made & NOT deleted. Being told I should just make a MySpace page was an insult. No one uses MySpace anymore & GJ wants a wiki page. I would rather have an email to discuss this so I can know EXATLY what we are doing wrong. I want this page, she wants this page & her fans want this page. She is actually writing info & I will do whatever needs to be done to get this page to stay active. This will be an official wiki page because all the Info is coming from her. Other than her Penthouse Pet Of The Month & contest wins & being certified in the actress industry & her work on the Fiat video along side Pitbull & Charlie Sheen & his name is on her SAG papers. I mean I need to know what to do to get this "certified" & not deleted because of redicules reasons. Thanks PLEASE HELP ME, poison8774

I am trying to understand the deletion process better. In your comments you refer to a deletion discussion. May I ask when this discussion was held? and is there an archive of said deletion discussion? Ncmikie (talk) 16:01, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Our disagreement

[edit]

Why are you attacking me? I've been nothing but civil throughout, I would rather any issues you with me mentioned here as it has nothing to do with the discussion. The time in past we have disagreed including a close of an AfD I made which had the same outcome regardless. If you think I am a poor editor please tell me why so I can improve. I would be more than happy to work with you. Valoem talk contrib 21:37, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Its not an attack to call out a ridiculous or specious argument. You need to stop substituting emotion and attacks on other users laced with generous helpings of assumptions of bad faith for colleagiate policy based arguments. You cannot short cuircuit an established consensus building process because you don't like the first argument to try and suit yourself. Your ridiculous defense of blatant canvassing was something special though. Fix this and we can work together. Carry on and you are going to have a lot of problems around here. Spartaz Humbug! 00:06, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To jump on the argument because you claim a policy was violated is in conflict with WP:IAR, when I see a group of people flocking to a certain subject that they have all participated in the past voting the same it is only reasonable to asked the other side to participate. Regardless, my goal is to show that many established editors take my position. I find it odd, that you are so fixed on "the right channels" being used when clearly they have impeded the expansion of this encyclopedia. If you feel that the other side has due weight please by all means participate. It would be odd to think that you feel this article is notable and yet attempt to discredit me because "the right channels" were not taken. A good example of consensus not being determined is here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boyd Bushman. If the closing admin was acting as a vote it should be a clear no consensus, 11 keeps 10 deletes. However, in light of the argument presented he felt that policy overrode consensus. Sources, sources, sources, they simply weren't there. Now we are on the opposite side, incel has enough sources that the article should never have been deleted, arguments suggesting the sources are not reliable is simply wrong. No one has discredited any source by academic means and no one can. Based on policy it is a clear keep since AfD is not a vote. At a minimum this article should be closed as no consensus. Now a year later here I am, we use DRV to determine whether or not the close was right determined on basis of whether or not an article can survive AfD. The only way ... is to try. Valoem talk contrib 00:45, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To highlight Boyd Bushman shows you have absolutely no understanding of deletion policy. The article was deleted at AFD and endorsed at DRV. To say that this was without consensus means that you do not understand consensus. Spartaz Humbug! 07:17, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why are purposefully misinterpreting what I am saying? I am saying the opposite, Bushman was closed with consensus, because arguments for deletion were vastly stronger than for keeping. The sourcing on Bushman's article is poor. If AfD's were a vote, which it is not, then based on the votes it would be no consensus, but as I said, we do not do that, so the delete outcome is fine. In the case of incel, the arguments for keep are vastly stronger, the sourcing undeniable. So consensus would be based on the which policy based argument is more compelling. Valoem talk contrib 09:29, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm finding it increasingly hard to follow what you mean. You said it was an example of consensus not being followed and now you say it is. Spartaz Humbug! 10:12, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain it to me

[edit]

I don't believe you and I have ever disagreed, so perhaps you'll humor me with this request. (It's possible you !voted against my 2011 RFA.) Involuntary celibacy has never been determined by process to be deleted. Yet no article or subsection covering this subject exists. Second AfD outcome was not clear, but closer made a call of Merge. I respect that someone had to close it, and it's a not unreasonable outcome. Yet talk page discussion won't let the subject matter get merged into the only reasonable target, Celibacy. Valoem has not been part of the lengthy discussions on Talk:Celibacy, so that user isn't rehashing anything, just trying to get fresh eyes on the subject. Here I come to the situation with zero history, seeing it on AfD. What seems totally not understandable to me is a group of editors demanding a delete outcome for a subject which has never been closed as delete. I can on the other hand understand why Valoem is trying a IAR approach to reviewing the subject matter. A DRV can't restore an article which has never been deleted (especially one mostly populated by the same folks participating in the AFD and the talk:Celibacy discussions); it can only approve or disapprove the closing of the AFD (which was reasonable). IAR seems the only way to go here. Perhaps I'm never going to understand deletion processes satisfactorily. Please point out the weakness in my evaluation. BusterD (talk) 21:26, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize if I've come close to pushing any buttons with you. Pardon me, but AFD 1 was a clear (and almost speedy) keep. And with due respect, lots of people on the (de facto) delete side are getting exasperated, yet delete is not an outcome previously determined. In this process I see at least myself, CorporateM, DGG, and BlueRaspberry asserting keep. I think the four of us are considered editors in good standing. None of us is angry or terse (though I'll confess I provoked Coffee more than I intended; I only intended to caution against the appearance of being the admin self-chosen to moderate this issue). Of the four of us, only DGG has participated in these discussions before, and David's been pretty consistent. If an AFD procedure is closed as merge and the pagewatchers at the merge target disallow the merge, where does that leave the material with no consensus for deletion but for recreation. If Coffee was as detached as that user claims, it seems to me there'd be no big issue with closer allowing recreation in userspace, exactly as Valoem has done, for the purpose of remeasuring consensus, exactly as done. I'm new to this discussion; I'm not rehashing and as is often said, consensus does change. It could reasonably argued that if the same cast of characters are tiring of this discussion, they might avoid participating and allow other members of the community to have a voice in this outcome themselves. Why are these few so adamant about defending this tiny corner of the wiki? What makes them so angry? I don't understand. BusterD (talk) 00:55, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For Spartaz

[edit]
Spartaz, please stay in the bottom two tiers
Hey buddy!

Oh jeez, not this s**t again! North America1000 03:12, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Lol, never knowingly in the upper tiers... Spartaz Humbug! 13:02, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion (4th nomination)

[edit]

Dude, why you being such a scrooge? pbp 12:52, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Um did you go into hibernation for a year? Spartaz Humbug! 13:03, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jawani Phir Nahi Ani listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Jawani Phir Nahi Ani. Since you had some involvement with the Jawani Phir Nahi Ani redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. UBStalk 08:35, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Catharsis (Sworn In EP)

[edit]

Do you know what exactly am I supposed to do from here? I assume the article isn't suddenly immune from deletion, so... I think it's pretty obvious that article should've ended up deleted. Do I wait and start a second AfD? Take it to Deletion Review? It just seems really weird. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 07:40, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • drv will be very unlikely to entertain an appeal for this. The long and the short is that Wgolf should not have canvassed and it destroyed the discussion. I can't see how any of the canvassed users can nominate or participate in future discussions with clean hands. I suggest you leave it someone uninvolved to pick this up in due course. Spartaz Humbug! 08:21, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Like that's gonna happen. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 09:01, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not the one who canvassed and ruined the discussion so its pointless being passive aggressive with me. I have teenage kids so its water off a duck's back. Spartaz Humbug! 10:32, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's not my fault either, that's why it's so weird, like, this article should've been deleted but didn't because of some bureaucratic technicality, and now the article just sits there and there's nothing I can do about it because, why? I agree that the nominator made a mistake by canvassing, but the result of that doesn't make any sense. ... It's just an article about some EP so I'm gonna let it go now, but I'm not happy about it. It might take literally forever for some uninvolved editor to come out of nowhere and realize that the article could be AfD'd. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 12:29, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Its not a technicality, its a fundamental requirement to maintain the integrity of our decision making. Perhaps the person who did the canvassing might feel embarrassed about the effect of their actions but they didn't seem very contrite when I raised it on their talk page. Perhaps you should continue this discussion with them? Spartaz Humbug! 19:35, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Inoculation

[edit]

Hi Spartaz, I think you may have accidentally deleted Inoculation yesterday. The AfD was for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inoculator, though that article on an album had been moved to Inoculator (EP). Other than the name it's not related to inoculation.--Cúchullain t/c 11:46, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No harm done. And no worries, it happens.--Cúchullain t/c 19:50, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Allied Wallet

[edit]

Hi Spartaz, I'd like you to change your close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allied Wallet (2nd nomination) as it does not reflect the discussion. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:05, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • The discussion was worthless because of the use of the notification system for canvassing delete votes so I'm afraid I'm not reclosing this. I suggest you wait a while and renominate and hope that the canvassing isn't repeated. Spartaz Humbug! 19:29, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply, I've taken it to DRV. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:59, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

inquiry

[edit]

Hello,

May I please request that you reveal what you meant by the term "non-established users" from the phrase " I'm giving less weight to arguments from non-established users" that you left in your closing statement for the AFD here [21] Thank you for your time. Cheers! WordSeventeen (talk) 13:05, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Trigon Engineering Society

[edit]

Hello Spartaz,

I was wondering if you could explain why you decided to delete Trigon Engineering Society. I strongly feel that a consensus had not been reached since a discussion was still ongoing between me and Bali88, with Bali88 stating he would review the new sources and update his opinion (from probable delete to delete or keep). Therefore I believe the result should have been to relist the discussion for further review. Thank you for your help!

Puppysnot (talk) 18:37, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Consensus was clear and the policy based votes were to delete. Location means nothing and your other argument - of a single source - did not meet the requirement for multiple reliable sources. Sorry. Spartaz Humbug! 19:31, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I disagree. All votes were policy-based, with two arguing delete, one arguing keep, and one arguing probable delete pending review of sources. More important, Bali88 did not get to update the "probable delete" vote based on review of the new sources that I added. I'm not saying the overall verdict should have been "keep," but I believe the discussion should have been relisted to allow Bali88 to review all the facts. If he had decided "delete," that would be that. I don't know what you mean by "location doesn't matter." I don't remember bringing up location at any point. Again, thank you for your clarification. Puppysnot (talk) 20:43, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Your keep argument started the organization has had a permanent presence on the Lawn of Thomas Jefferson's Academical Village. I'm not sure how I was supposed to interpret that except as a reference to location. And there were 2 delete (nominator counts), 1 probable delete (all 3 reflecting policy) and your non-policy based keep. That equals a delete consensus when consensus is measured by arguments against policy. Spartaz Humbug! 20:50, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • You're right, I forgot I had mentioned that. I initially believed my keep was policy-based, since I believed I had two reliable sources, but on further review of WP:SCHOLARSHIP it looks like non-PHD theses aren't permissible. In that case I understand your judgment. Thanks for clarifying. Puppysnot (talk) 21:14, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pawn deletion

[edit]

Hello. You closed the pawn deletion discussion with delete citing lack of sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pawn_%28scripting_language%29 But I listed at least two WP:RELIABLE sources, and updated the article with them. And an editor previous voting for delete changed it's vote to keep after seeing that. All the delete votes were cast before I edited the original article with the new sources. There was no lack of sources (IMHO) nor consensus for deletion. Please review your decision. Caroliano (talk) 19:44, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Are these the same sources you gave in the AFD where two very experienced editors still voted to delete afterwards? Spartaz Humbug! 19:47, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • That was in 2 April. After Neutrality voted delete I went again to search for more sources and posted them in 5 April. Piotrus aparently didn't even read any of that, as it said "Self-published (creator's website) references only". Then I went to update the article itself. After that Be..anyone changed his vote. The other two didn't apear again to say if they changed their opinion or not after that. Caroliano (talk) 20:01, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I didn't pick up on that - probably because your comment included I included some of the sources I listed above in the discussion. What were the additional sources you referred to? I will review them and see if that should have changed the outcome. Spartaz Humbug! 20:06, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think you can see the history of the article. The main ones were the Dr. Dobbs article and the page in that book (that is a real mainstream printed book where it costs to them to add one extra page). And also the notable software/games that use/used it. In the deletion page I also listed lots of evidence that it is widely used by many groups unrelated to the language authors, as an informal pledge for notability, to show it is not a pet project or commercial spam. Caroliano (talk) 21:03, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Any update? Caroliano (talk) 17:18, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wouldn;t accept DrDobbs as a reliable source - from their 'about' page the articles in DDJ are often written by the readers of DDJ and the author of that article is not on their staff. I found a copy of the 1st edition of the book online and couldn't find a reference to the subject. Obviously its not the second edition, but if all you have is that it won't be enough. Spartaz Humbug! 06:53, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Even if not written by their staff, it is revised and published by them, and they have proven themselves as a reliable source over the years. As for the book, you can find searching for Pawn on google books
      • And now a little rant: It is a programming language, not a politician. The pawn manual is probably the most reliable and extensive source on the language, being extended and revised for over a decade. And right behind are the wiki pages I linked on the forks, that were likely written by the fork developers itself and maybe with little corrections from the users. Of course they fail the general wikipedia guidelines for reliability as primary/self published/user generated, but common sense indicates that they are probably reliable for technical matters. Wikipedia kinda recognizes that in WP:SELFSOURCE. The reason for disallowing self published content is that "Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book, and also claim to be an expert in a certain field". But someone who created a game engine using this language and supported it and it's relatively large user and developer base for years is not simply "anyone" anymore, even if he isn't a distinguished academic.
      • The problem here was mainly notability. Is it self promotional cruft that was never adopted by anyone besides their creators and thus would not merit a encyclopedic article? Or is it a language with maybe thousands of developers, recognized by github, that sparked not one, but two children, used by gamming modding comunities and WP:NOTABLE games alike? A mainstream programming book could afford pay a page to feature it, but an article in wikipedia would make it an worse online encyclopedia? Yeah, the strictly WP:RELIABLE references are on the low side, but I think it is reasonable to argue that the existence of this article wouldn't make wikipedia worse, but better, especially after my edits to it. And I wasn't the only one thinking that way in the deletion discussion you closed by mistake. Caroliano (talk) 20:21, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thank you for recapping your understanding of our notability rules. Unfortunately, I do not recognise the actual way we assess notability in your version. You clearly flagged you had added sources in your vote. Despite this experienced users still voted to delete. It is not a mistake to close that discussion as delete. Spartaz Humbug! 20:37, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

[edit]
The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
for your cool consideration of and decision at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/African american men in computer science. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 13:47, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Andreas Lubitz

[edit]

No doubt you'll see it eventully, but a DRV has been raised on this subject. It appears a merge discussion and the deletion were running concurrently which makes this a bit messy. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 09:00, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Allied Wallet AfD

[edit]

Just to let you know, I didn't receive any ping or canvassing of the new nomination (I just learned that I could have pings on in notifications); I learned about the re-nom through my daliy check of the AfD log, and that alone. Just wanted to let you know that only my familiarity with the previous AfD, not any notice from the nominator was why I even learned of it. I do accept the no-con determination, but usually I don't even enjoy receiving canvassing notices as it screams 'please delete/keep this article please!' and just is desperate. Nate • (chatter) 03:46, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hadith of Virtues of Persia People

[edit]

I saw that this article is deleted by you. I could not participate the discussion because of being busy and I really believe that the subject is notable and is covered by reliable secondary sources. Could I have a copy of the article and how can I ask to undelete it? Mhhossein (talk) 14:03, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As you see, few editors participated the discussion and their arguments are really defendable. To let you know the details, please provide me with a copy of the article. Thanks Mhhossein (talk) 10:35, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, what is the argument you want to add to the discussion? Its it isn't going to refute the delete votes (which appeared to be policy based around sources) then there is no point looking at this again. Spartaz Humbug! 20:41, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The userfied article is at User:Mhhossein/Hadith of Virtues of Persia People Spartaz Humbug! 20:43, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've used a secondary source here. It is published in an academic journal. As for the primary sources, please consider that the article is not based on them and I have not analyzed the article using those sources. They are only added to represent the hadiths texts. We'd better improve the article instead of deleting it. Mhhossein (talk) 11:48, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not qualified to assess that source but if you can find more of the same or better quality I'm willing to delist the discussion.Spartaz Humbug! 16:37, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your valuable attention, I'll let you know as soon as I find reliable sources. Mhhossein (talk) 05:34, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good time of day, once again, spartaz! I am very sorry for posting the image of Royal airlines, because I did not know it was existing in English version when I was uploading it. You can delete it (I tried myself, but it did not work and once again help me to delete it. Thank you for helping and understanding! MikleffCoolX (talk) 10:47, 4 May 2015 (UTC)MikleffCoolX[reply]

Garrett Sutton

[edit]

I was wondering if you could share your reasoning for relisting this page a third time. I understand that Wikipedia recommends not relisting articles more than twice and that if an editor does so, he/she should provide a short explanation. Thank you. Woodenships513 (talk) 16:50, 4 May 2015 (UTC)Woodenships513[reply]

Cyrus Farivar

[edit]

Sorry if I'm not formatting this correctly, I'm new to wikipedia (doing more than browsing that is).

It looks like you deleted the page Cyrus Farivar and listed G4 as the reason. I think "This excludes pages that are (1) not substantially identical to the deleted version, (2) pages to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies" applies in this case.

(1) There's no way that I know of to access the old page, but given that it existed in 2007, and the new page referenced about half of it's content from an article this month, it seems highly unlikely that the page was substantially identical to the deleted version.

(2) I believe the reasons for deletion centered on A) lack of noteworthiness, B) An article quoting the subject of the page as saying he created the first iteration (but not the subsequent ones). A) First, it has been 8 years since the page was last deleted, it is unlikely for a person to have become -less- noteworthy over 8 years as an active journalist. Second, one could easily make the argument that the number of times this page has been deleted and recreated and the multiple deletion discussions surrounding it has all on its' own made the page and the person noteworthy. B) He didn't create this one.

So, I think it should be undeleted.

Thanks for your time. Wordlet (talk) 06:01, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I didn't see the necessary reliable sourcing about the man to overcome a previous consensus that he is not notable. If you have this I'lol happily list this at afd. Spartaz Humbug! 06:38, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No you deleted it because the article is about an individual who has proved - in part - what really is Wikipedia. Besides Wikipediocracy called it correctly that the article would be deleted. Pretty par for the course for this hypocritical site; for one that lauds it how its WP:NOTCENSORED, it sure doesn't like critics. But then again you're just another anonymous unpaid drone who does this job for unwarranted self importance, so really what should we expect?86.182.40.99 (talk) 10:52, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

[edit]
Hello, Spartaz. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive884.
Message added 18:09, 10 May 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Mkdwtalk 18:09, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

...why did you edit an archive? — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 09:56, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Jeraphine Gryphon: It wasn't worth un-archiving and putting it back on the main ANI page if Spartaz, the original editor who re-opened the discussion, wasn't going to respond. Unlike other archives where conversations are moved when they're closed or stale (usually 3 months), ANI auto-archives conversations rapidly. It would be auto-archived within 48 hours and likely before anyone had a chance to fully respond given the timeline of the conversation up until then. It was considered though but since the only edit made was to ask if this discussion was still open I did not feel it was particularly impertinent to go through all the motions especially since the original two editors involved had since moved on and this was essentially a continued discussion that could have been moved to user talk pages. Mkdwtalk 14:56, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rape jihad, again

[edit]

I had a feeling that someone would have a copy of this article as a user subpage and it exists at User:Раціональне_анархіст/sandbox. Even though the article has been deleted and salted I see no reason to have this copy of a deleted article as it won't be recreated again. If you could also salt Rape Jihad, that would be great, too. Thanks! Liz Read! Talk! 23:38, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ANI discussion

[edit]

Hi there. A while back you left a message on my talk page about an ANI discussion involving me. I added a message today to that still-open discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive884#Further discussion. Would you have a moment to comment? Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:13, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Innoculation

[edit]

Hello Spartaz. Re: deletion of the page Innoculation. I went to this page expecting to find a redirect to Inoculation (as a misspelling), but according to the reason for deletion it must somehow have become tied up with WP:Articles for deletion/Inoculator. That discussion doesn't seem to make clear what state Innoculation was in at the time of deletion. However, I was wondering if at some point in its history it was a redirect to Inoculation? And if so, could it be restored and reverted to that state? That would seem to be a useful redirect – but I wanted to check with you the correct way to get there rather than just recreating the page. Thank you! – Wdchk (talk) 01:36, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mass delete?

[edit]

Hello, you recently blocked User talk:SilverSurfingSerpent. As noted on the talk page, even outside of the issues of socking the user was not very careful with their editing as they raced to get to the 500 edit mark. They created a lot of articles like United States presidential election in Washington (state), 1980 and United States Senate election in Wyoming, 1988 . I checked only these two and in both of them there were significant errors - in one they got the year wrong and in the other they got the state wrong. Are they a candidate for mass deletion or is there a way to ensure all of the users work gets verified? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 09:38, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Array Networks DRV

[edit]

Hi. A small comment about your DRV close. You said, doesn't appear to be a clear consensus here that the sourced offered guarantee a new version would pass another AFD. I think you might be holding things to a higher standard than necessary. IMHO, what we're looking for is a reasonable chance to pass AFD, not a guarantee, and then AFD can make the final call. I'm not objecting to your close, just my thoughts. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:30, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • i'm not sure we actually mean different things. In essence the close was endorse the prev deletion but anyone can have a go at recreating at risk from an afd. The degree of risk reflected as advice afterwards is perhaps superfluous to that finding. I'm towards the deletionist end of the scale so maybe I read the risk of failing an afd as higher then you did but we would both agree that this is for the afd to determine not drv. does this help clarify what was in my mind? Spartaz Humbug! 12:45, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Brews ohare

[edit]

Hi Spartaz, you indeffed this user over two weeks ago. They continue to use their Talk page as "editing central" for pages that interest them at Wikipedia. I already removed one article-per-Brews from their Talk page and warned them. They haven't been as blatant since, but if it were my call, I'd still revoke talk page access as this is not an appropriate use of a talk page while blocked. However, it's your block, and if it doesn't bother you, I'll let it alone.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:52, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't feel strongly about it as I didn't formally topic ban them - especially if playing with his talk page means he isn't encouraged to sock. Honestly, feel free to act but I won't unless the page use becomes clearly disruptive. Spartaz Humbug! 17:43, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted article

[edit]

The article List of civilian massacres attributed to the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam which was created by me on 18 May 2015 was deleted by you at the AFD on 30 May 2015. I am little bit confused with your decision to delete it without making any remarks on the decision. I would like to know the reason for the deletion? --LahiruG talk 06:28, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Act first, think later

[edit]

I'm not here to cause trouble, so hear me out. As an admin, and if you want respect from others, it's best in future if you reverse the ways of doing things, as given above. As I have said, taking Rollback away from me bothers me about as much as mud bothers a hippo; I had simply forgotten about the rules. It therefore wasn't "abuse". I get a lot of filthy trolls follow me about, as you saw at ANI, who relish at the chance of coming along, purely to stick the knife in. I'd appreciate it if next time, you'd give those who are up on offer a chance to explain themselves before using that sledgehammer to crack the nut. Thanks. CassiantoTalk 08:39, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Article deleted in 2011

[edit]

Hi, you deleted The Dark Tower series film adaptation on December 3, 2011, but a lot of time has passed since that time, and the project has gone through many ups and downs. I feel an article chronicling this project, still unrealized, is a legitimate topic for an article. Even from its title it's apparent the article isn't about the film itself, but the adaptation process. Maybe it could be renamed. But I would love to see the article restored, and have the chance to improve it. If the films or films does happen, the article can then be transformed accordingly, and if it never gets off the ground, the article can still function as a historical overview of the efforts, which are interesting to follow with the number of people have have been involved over its history and the variety of proposed ways to bring the book series to the big and/or small screen (as per Wikipedia:Planned films). Thanks. Jmj713 (talk) 14:28, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll userfy this for you if you like but before you restore it, I'd suggest that you need to make a case at DRV to show that the reasons for deletion have been overcome. Spartaz Humbug! 17:44, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly. Thank you. Jmj713 (talk) 17:59, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Its now at User:Jmj713The_Dark_Tower_series_film_adaptation Spartaz Humbug! 18:03, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Will be doing some research and working on it for a while and then post at Wikipedia:Deletion review to get it back to the mainspace. Jmj713 (talk) 18:12, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Cool,good luck. Spartaz Humbug! 18:15, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sylvester Rivers

[edit]

Re: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sylvester_Rivers

Thanks, Spartaz, for your thoughtful consideration of this article. I could definitely use some help. Sylvester Rivers has recorded over one hundred albums with numerous major artists on major labels, many of which are RIAA certified gold and multi-platinum. He is the composer and co-writer of the title song of the Michael Henderson album, “In the Night Time,” certified Gold by the RIAA and in the top 10 in two of the Billboard Charts plus in the top 40 in two other Billboard Charts. WP:NMUSIC lists notability criteria as follows, “For composers, songwriters, librettists or lyricists: 1. Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition.” Sylvester Rivers is mentioned several times in existing Wikipedia articles and several Sylvester Rivers works have their own separate Wikipedia articles. The main issue seems to be verifiable sources. However, the main sources I used to verify these claims, Allmusic.com, RIAA.com, Billboard.com and Discogs.com, are the same ones used in many Good Articles on many major artists such as Tony Bennett and Nicki Minaj. Thanks in advance for any help you can offer. I very much appreciate it. Riversco (talk) 03:59, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'll think you will find that Nicki Minaj and Tony Bennett are not relying on allmusic et al to show notability. The fact that they are used for non-N reasons has no bearing on the fact that they are not enough on their own for Sylvester Rivers to justify his own article. With regard to mentions you will see at WP;GNG that indepth is the required standard. Sorry but you need to find something more suitable. Spartaz Humbug! 09:35, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, Spartaz, for the help. Riversco (talk) 12:19, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks again, Spartaz, for the recent clarification. The afd nomination and negative votes were all placed when the article first posted in early draft form, with almost no book or magazine references, except those showing chart positions and RIAA gold and platinum certifications. As you noted the article was close, so I’ve added book and other references below:

1. Jones, Lesley-Ann (2012) “Ride A White Swan: The Lives and death of Marc Bolan” pp. 246-247., Hodder & Stoughton Ltd, ISBN-10: 1444758772, ISBN-13: 978-1444758771

2. MacKenzie, Alex (2009) “The Life and Times of the Motown Stars” p. 144, Together Publications, ISBN: 1842260146, 9781842260142

3. Pool, Jeannie (2007) “The Sound of Motown” http://www.asmac.org/motown-sound-panel-luncheon-november-14-2007/

4. White, Adam; Bronson, Fred (1993) “The Billboard Book of Number One Rhythm & Blues Hits” p. 91, p. 223, p. 238, Billboard Books, ISBN-0823082857, 9780823082858

Thanks, again. Riversco (talk) 06:06, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reference 2: https://books.google.com/books?id=yik3AQAAIAAJ&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=sylvester+rivers Reference 4: https://books.google.com/books?ei=QVd2VfjtMs_qoASz86Jw&id=w0xLAAAAYAAJ&dq=billboard+book+of+number+one+r%26b&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=sylvester+rivers Thanks, once again. Riversco (talk) 03:40, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Sullivan

[edit]

Hello. I am a bit confused regarding your deletion decision for Eric Sullivan. Since a few years ago, Grammy is awarded to album producers as well, which is clearly stated on the official Grammy website and for which I proved evidence during discussion. So, basically nothing differs Eric Sullivan from other Grammy-winning producers. The topic clearly passes WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. Before taking this to Deletion review, I wanted to check things with you. Cheers! --BiH (talk) 08:53, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

as far as I can see the Grammy was for an album not a personal Grammy. Unless there is a consensus to point to that says that counts as a personal win, I'd expect DRV to prefer a failure to meet GNG over an albums award. YMMV. Spartaz Humbug! 20:24, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Spartaz:: You are mistaken here. The Grammy is awarded personally to the producers of winning albums. Thus, he won the Grammy to his very own name since he was working on the Grammy-awarded album. I believe that is a new practice from Grammy not older than a few years. That is way I was surprised by your decision especially since other users pointed that as well. --BiH (talk) 14:19, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You don;t need to ping on my own talk page. Have you got a source for that? That the Grammy for an albumn is awarded to the producer and not the artist? Spartaz Humbug! 14:59, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, see this link under 2013 in Winners column: "Laura Sullivan, artist. Eric Sullivan, producer." - thus two Grammys have been awarded. I have stated that in the discussion, but it was obviously ignored. Also, in Grammy Award for Best New Age Album, in second paragraph of the lead section it is stated and cited with ref no. 5: "Beginning in 2001, award recipients included the producers, engineers, and/or mixers associated with the nominated work in addition to the recording artists." --BiH (talk) 15:26, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, Yes I did see that earlier. My problem is that its not a personal grammy and if I might quote from WP:BIO;
People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included
The language there is very clear that meeting a single condition is not a silver bullet and in this case we have a BLP of an individual who most certainly fails the GNG. On that basis, and given the wider project priority around sourcing BLPs, I'd take a view that the GNG must tale preference. I'll list this at DRV for discussion. Spartaz Humbug! 06:44, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SilverSurfingSerpent and Jesse Helms

[edit]

Hey there, Jesse Helms is under attack by single-purpose accounts pulling the same POV whitewashing that "SilverSurfingSerpent" did before you blocked him. I think obvious socks are obvious, can you take a look when you can? Tarc (talk) 19:56, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He can certainly take a look, but what will he find? Nada. I'm not a sockpuppet of anybody. You're the POV warrior here. TheWhiteKnight1 (talk) 20:04, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The troll above has conveniently appeared; account created at 15:51, revert-warring starts at 15:53. Tarc (talk) 20:07, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: User:TheWhiteKnight1

[edit]

Saw your comment at his talk. Found his talk page via this SPI [22] Just a heads up. Capitalismojo (talk) 21:54, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dairiese Gary

[edit]

Just saying, it was a pretty bad move to speedy and protect Dairese Gary. Im thinking about reporting the action since it was marked for speedy and declined. Nominating for AfD would have been a better move. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 20:54, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • →Does the irony of your threatening me for not following process when my action was a direct response of your flagrant run around the drv process escape you I wonder. You are welcome to present your new sources to drv and ask them to consider if they justify a relist. Of course you could go to ANI but I'm sure you will get referred back to drv anyway. Spartaz Humbug! 22:01, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I just want to make it clear that I was not trying to do a run around the DRV. Just because an article was deleted at AfD does not mean something should be deleted forever. As an example, two articles I have recently created, Abdul Gaddy and Olu Ashaolu, were previously deleted at AfD. Does that mean they should be speedy deleted? The speedy delete was ALREADY DECLINED by someone other than me. Deleting it, and most of all protecting it so even if he plays in the NBA an article cant be created, was the real WP:DICK move. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 22:25, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • seriously? In the middle of a drv you decide it's not necessary to listen to editors who gave up their volunteer time to consider your requests?Are you incapable of listing your sources or asking for an unlock if they become notable? Spartaz Humbug! 22:31, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm also giving up my own time, buddy. Most of the other editors said something along the lines of "Joe Decker made the correct decision to delete the article, but it can be recreated if there are sources to establish notability." I did that, and requested to end the DRV. Instead you decided to delete the article, despite the fact that an uninvolved editor removed a speedy tag. It seems like you protected it just to piss me off -- is that what Humbug is supposed to mean. In any case I listed two sources on the DrV page. There were other sources, which you could have seen if you had actually bothered to read the article. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 00:22, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Sullivan

[edit]

Hello. I am a bit confused regarding your deletion decision for Eric Sullivan. Since a few years ago, Grammy is awarded to album producers as well, which is clearly stated on the official Grammy website and for which I proved evidence during discussion. So, basically nothing differs Eric Sullivan from other Grammy-winning producers. The topic clearly passes WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. Before taking this to Deletion review, I wanted to check things with you. Cheers! --BiH (talk) 08:53, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

as far as I can see the Grammy was for an album not a personal Grammy. Unless there is a consensus to point to that says that counts as a personal win, I'd expect DRV to prefer a failure to meet GNG over an albums award. YMMV. Spartaz Humbug! 20:24, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Spartaz:: You are mistaken here. The Grammy is awarded personally to the producers of winning albums. Thus, he won the Grammy to his very own name since he was working on the Grammy-awarded album. I believe that is a new practice from Grammy not older than a few years. That is way I was surprised by your decision especially since other users pointed that as well. --BiH (talk) 14:19, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You don;t need to ping on my own talk page. Have you got a source for that? That the Grammy for an albumn is awarded to the producer and not the artist? Spartaz Humbug! 14:59, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, see this link under 2013 in Winners column: "Laura Sullivan, artist. Eric Sullivan, producer." - thus two Grammys have been awarded. I have stated that in the discussion, but it was obviously ignored. Also, in Grammy Award for Best New Age Album, in second paragraph of the lead section it is stated and cited with ref no. 5: "Beginning in 2001, award recipients included the producers, engineers, and/or mixers associated with the nominated work in addition to the recording artists." --BiH (talk) 15:26, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, Yes I did see that earlier. My problem is that its not a personal grammy and if I might quote from WP:BIO;
People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included
The language there is very clear that meeting a single condition is not a silver bullet and in this case we have a BLP of an individual who most certainly fails the GNG. On that basis, and given the wider project priority around sourcing BLPs, I'd take a view that the GNG must tale preference. I'll list this at DRV for discussion. Spartaz Humbug! 06:44, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SilverSurfingSerpent and Jesse Helms

[edit]

Hey there, Jesse Helms is under attack by single-purpose accounts pulling the same POV whitewashing that "SilverSurfingSerpent" did before you blocked him. I think obvious socks are obvious, can you take a look when you can? Tarc (talk) 19:56, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He can certainly take a look, but what will he find? Nada. I'm not a sockpuppet of anybody. You're the POV warrior here. TheWhiteKnight1 (talk) 20:04, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The troll above has conveniently appeared; account created at 15:51, revert-warring starts at 15:53. Tarc (talk) 20:07, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: User:TheWhiteKnight1

[edit]

Saw your comment at his talk. Found his talk page via this SPI [23] Just a heads up. Capitalismojo (talk) 21:54, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ http://www.amnesty.org/en/news/malaysia-release-activists-arrested-government-u-turn-repressive-law-2013-05-23
  2. ^ http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/info/ASA28/010/2014/en
  3. ^ http://www.amnesty.org/en/news/malaysia-sedition-investigation-opposition-leader-politically-motivated-2014-09-23
  4. ^ http://www.marxists.org/history/etol/intl.htm
  5. ^ http://asocialistmalaysia.blogspot.co.uk/
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Spartaz/Archive19&oldid=1086411746"