User talk:slakr

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Hey Slakr, Thanks for all the work u do!


Ludovic Lepic - Chaos.jpg slakr's life is currently frolicking with chaos, so his activity and response times to queries will be highly variable.
Leave a message and he will respond whenever he gets a chance— that is, assuming he gets a chance. Cheers =)
zOMG!!! I need urgent assistance!!!1!!banana?kiwi?



Nuvola apps important blue.svg Ideally, please use this link to post new messages at the bottom. If you can't find something you recently posted, I might have moved it down there or it could have been archived if you posted it over 7 days ago. Cheers :)

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
Comment

Regarding slakr:

Regarding SineBot:

A Call to Action deletion[edit]

Hi Slakr-- Sorry to meet you in what seem to me these strange circumstances, but then I am new to Wikipedia. I am the original author of the A Call to Action page. I was surprised to find that it had been deleted since the first time I heard about it was from a third party. I don't quite know what your role was but I note that no deletion summary has been provided. The article attracted a great deal of attention and controversy for a supposedly non- notable topic and from the first this much of the consensus (such as it was) appeared to come from a narrow band of opinion. I really fail to understand how this organization did not meet notability criteria which refer to mainstream news media since its chair was interviewed on the Today programme and other places as representing Catholic lay opinion, and it was on BBC new site. It was referred to a 'booming new organisation' in another article in the Independent, and appears copiously as cited in Catholic Independent News and all UK Catholic national weeklies. It has a national organization involving every diocese, and has had official representative meetings with the Cardinal and several of the bishops (again as cited in the press). It has run 3 major national conferences with hundreds of attenders, and these themselves attracted attendance in the hundreds. There is no doubt at all that it is the main Catholic progressive organization in the UK with priests and lay members and distinguished theologians. I would very much like you to review and reverse your decision without further ado. Please do not be influenced by the numbers arguing for delete-- there is something of a stich up here and they by no means amount to a consensus. With thanks for your attention Tomcapa1 (talk) 15:52, 6 January 2015 (UTC) I do hope to hear from you shortly. How can I see the deletion summary? Tomcapa1 (talk) 14:01, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

The primary policy-based argument that was advanced was that it failed our standards for the notability of organizations, while some also added concerns over its non-neutral tone. There is no "deletion summary," apart from the discussion by the community --slakrtalk / 14:12, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

"""Comment""" Thank you for your reply. You will note that I have provided for you above a short rebuttal of the view that A Call to Action does not meet Wiki notability criteria-- these include interviews on Today programme, BBC main news items by the BBC religious advisor Robert Piggott, and other articles all over the place. I have also just completed a short revision of the text and will also be seeking further advice. I do hope that you will now reconsider for the reasons copiously explained above so that we can avoid a full deletion review, and look forward to hearing from you. Thanks again Tomcapa1 (talk) 11:41, 9 January 2015 (UTC) Tomcapa1 (talk) 11:20, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

"""Comment""" Thank you for your reply. You will note that I have provided for you above a short rebuttal of the view that A Call to Action does not meet Wiki notability criteria-- these include interviews on Today programme, BBC main news items by the BBC religious advisor Robert Piggott, and other articles all over the place. I hope that you will now reconsider and look forward to hearing from you. Tomcapa1 (talk) 11:20, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

It's not my argument; it's the input of experienced editors from the community, in good standing, who were involved in the debate. My role is mainly just to check what the main arguments are and that they align with the existing consensus of the community, as reflected by our policies and guidelines. Although you believe that the article might meet them, that belief does not trump that of the rest of the community, who in this instance appear to believe to the contrary. --slakrtalk / 20:32, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

"""Sorry, but if you take out of the reckoning those editors, only one of whom is an Administrator, who have a record of editing wars and deletion requests for all progressive RC entries -- (documentation available) you will find that there was not a consensus. Your phrase 'the rest of the community' even without that is completely wrong, as you will see if you examine more closely. I am definitely going to ask for a deletion review if you are not able to reconsider Tomcapa1 (talk) 12:32, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

You're clearly convinced of your views with abject certainty, so it appears there's nothing more I can do. --slakrtalk / 18:08, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

"""Comment""" I am not a person who takes offence easily, and I am sure you are doing your best, but I find your last remark rude and far from objective and neutral. It is quite unnecessary. Tomcapa1 (talk) 11:53, 15 January 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomcapa1 (talkcontribs) 11:52, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Austin Madaisky[edit]

Hi Slakr. Would you explain how the "delete" arguments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Austin Madaisky established that Austin Madaisky failed both Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline and WP:NHOCKEY? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:59, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I could, but I doubt that I would be able to do so in a way that would satisfy you. The arguments raised by the editors involved were fairly very clear, and where there was believed to be ambiguity in the guidelines, your opinion simply wasn't the one the others in the discussion shared. --slakrtalk / 02:42, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Please try. I would like to understand your close better. I thought Wikipedia:Notability (sports)/FAQ clarified what "non-routine secondary coverage for sports" was. I don't understand how the sources can be dismissed for being from "people connected to the topic matter" when no such connection was provided.

I likely will avoid participating in ice hockey AfDs like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Austin Madaisky and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Craig Bonner now that I know the sources I find do not meet the high standards that do not exist in other topic areas. Cunard (talk) 02:53, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Okay, enough of the talk about not participating, because nobody's asking you to do that, silly :P. More sources are always good. :D Anyway, I believe their main argument wasn't that they weren't independent so much as the coverage was too run-of-the-mill/routine. For what it's worth, I've noticed people's interpretation of the GNG (as far as what constitutes routine coverage) varies by subject areas. The bar seems lower for less-broadly-popular fields (e.g., academics) and higher for mass-appeal ones (e.g., athletes)—at least, that's from what I've seen people argue. *shrug* --slakrtalk / 03:49, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Just venting my frustration at having wasted time futilely looking for sources. ;) Thank you for the interesting comments about the different interpretations of GNG by subject areas. The athlete standard seems very high to me because it's easy to dismiss all the newspaper articles as routine, leaving only athlete topics that pass WP:ATHLETE or have had entire books written about them. Cunard (talk) 04:33, 13 January 2015 (UTC)



Oil, a lot of oil for SineBot[edit]

Look at SineBot's talk page! Dinosaur Fan (talk) 00:06, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Range blocked user returning in another range[edit]

On Dec 11, 2014 you range blocked 2001:1388:106::/47 explained here for disruptive editing. The user has returned, same geo location, Lima Peru, as 181.66.157.182 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 181.66.157.51 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) making same disruptive edits to same articles. Some good, some bad, lots of work to sort them out and in net not helpful to project. Since this is pretty obviously the same user, this is also block evasion. Current range looks to be 181:66.157.0/24 and doesn't look to have much potential for collateral damage. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:43, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Barnstar of Reversion Hires.png The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
How fast does this bot block IPs and proxies? t 1234567890Number c 00:28, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Biological Imperative's page deletion[edit]

Why was it deleted? I don't know how to restore it and I'd like to at least copy the contents for my own reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.240.37.94 (talk) 11:16, 27 January 2015 (UTC)