Jump to content

User talk:GoneAwayNowAndRetired: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Noroton (talk | contribs)
37,252 edits
→‎Susan Boyle close: more, consider this an expanded close reasoning
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 357: Line 357:
::I'll concede that when a deletionist doesn't get his way, he dies a little bit. It's like depriving him of food. [[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]] 13:37, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
::I'll concede that when a deletionist doesn't get his way, he dies a little bit. It's like depriving him of food. [[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]] 13:37, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
:Root, I thought I was going to blast you when I came here, but MacNee is scorching you more than even I would. Keeping the article is not a terrible decision, because consensus does enter into these things, but you're all wet on the reasoning, in my arrogant opinion. The "event" in [[WP:BLP1E]] should be considered broadly, encompassing related appearances on the same show that essentially are the same experience and depend on her initial appearance (the "event" is really "her appearances on the show" because all the coverage will treat it as essentially the same thing). The strongest Keep argument, it seems to me, is a bit common-sensical: existence of articles that talk about her life as a whole. With enough of those kind of profile pieces, it's hard for the Delete side to say there's not enough detailed sourcing covering this subject as a whole, which is the point of WP:BLP1E. You are right about expecting more coverage in a case like this, which is another common-sense point, and common sense is supposed to enter into this. So you're really not all wet, although it was fun to say. -- [[User:Noroton|Noroton]] ([[User talk:Noroton|talk]]) 13:42, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
:Root, I thought I was going to blast you when I came here, but MacNee is scorching you more than even I would. Keeping the article is not a terrible decision, because consensus does enter into these things, but you're all wet on the reasoning, in my arrogant opinion. The "event" in [[WP:BLP1E]] should be considered broadly, encompassing related appearances on the same show that essentially are the same experience and depend on her initial appearance (the "event" is really "her appearances on the show" because all the coverage will treat it as essentially the same thing). The strongest Keep argument, it seems to me, is a bit common-sensical: existence of articles that talk about her life as a whole. With enough of those kind of profile pieces, it's hard for the Delete side to say there's not enough detailed sourcing covering this subject as a whole, which is the point of WP:BLP1E. You are right about expecting more coverage in a case like this, which is another common-sense point, and common sense is supposed to enter into this. So you're really not all wet, although it was fun to say. -- [[User:Noroton|Noroton]] ([[User talk:Noroton|talk]]) 13:42, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
::Read below. I'm one of the far more rigid people on BLP generally, so I really don't think BLP1E counts here. Read below... <font color="0D670D" face="Georgia, Helvetica">[[User:Rootology|rootology]]</font> (<font color="#156917">[[Special:Contributions/Rootology|C]]</font>)(<font color="#156917">[[User talk:Rootology|T]]</font>) 13:44, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

:First off, BLP is not a factor here in any level, to just clear that, and I'll explain why BLP1E is a false argument here. And again, feel free to DRV it. I fundamentally agreed more with the collective weight and opinions from the Keepers being more in line with our history, precedents, and principles, and ideas like this should be openly tolerated, since the presumption that "Internet notability" (what does that even mean?) is "less important" than "real world" notability--that's really what you and many Deleters here are arguing, no matter how it's dressed up--are naive attitudes.

:The Internet IS the real world at this point, for better or worse, no matter how hard or vigorously some people like to poo poo the entire web 2.0 thing. It's nothing to do with our needlessly rigid, increasingly irrelevant--each month, it fades in social value as an internal concept--"Recentism" ideas. The press is faster now since it doesn't rely on the permanence of physical media to deliver news. Recentism because of this is a wholly subjective thing, with too many people valuing "physical" news in some vague way over "transient" news, with "transient" being the Internet. Again, what does that even mean? It's a nonsense argument. A well-maintained bit of data that is properly preserved in an open format will last theoretically forever. A newspaper will eventually rot away and crumble. But you see where this is all going?

:It boils down to Deletionists vs. Inclusionists, and the foolish idea that an AFD or DRV is binding forever. I closed the AFD as I saw where it was heading, and where it had gone per policy. Consensus clearly supported Keeping already; I agreed that the Keepers had won the arguments and day--and not just by numbers, Wikidemon, Ched, the first few sentences by Stude62 (painfully true, AGF aside), Raven1977, and J Van Meter. BLP1E is '''absolutely''' a false argument here as Iakeb points out: her performance; the significance and separate reporting on her unique YouTube popularity after, and since then we have her being signed to a record label and when (in a week?) she performs again we'll have even more events/details. Each passing day there were more and more sources about Boyle visible online and in searches, so presumably as well in "old world" media like physical newspapers, of course. I closed based on what has come before, the opinions expressed, my interpretation of policy, the sourcing there (and growing--23 refs today, 21 when I closed), and the fact that 1) she's not a BLP1E, she's a BLP4E now unless she drops dead before her appearances on the actual show contests, and 2) every single time one of these social culture articles like hers gets AFD'd, if the person isn't really a BLP1E--like hers, they are '''virtual always''' a better article later as the sourcing really does not stop.

:Many people like to AFD quick, hard, and fast, in the presumption that it will keep something "out" of WP longer. Nonsense--DRV is too smart to allow gaming like that in any pointless Deletionist vs Inclusionist content race. If something isn't a one-off or Deep Fancrust, sourcing will always build over time--it's inevitable, like the tides themselves. And like the tides themselves, the consensus backed by policy was pretty darn clear on the Boyle AFD: keep. Deleting Boyle today would also, in my personal opinion, be a completely pointless strategic move of no benefit to anyone. The day after her next appearance on the show, or the minute the media comes out with the information on the forthcoming album, it would sail through DRV so fast that people's heads would spin. Why nuke the article for a week (or two) then? It would be a pointless procedural exercise that would lead to rules-jockey admins fighting people trying to recreate it for the 10-14 days, and pointless things like ANI alerts. As for your wording of it being a poor close, thanks. But it's not poor because you disagree with it's outcome. <font color="0D670D" face="Georgia, Helvetica">[[User:Rootology|rootology]]</font> (<font color="#156917">[[Special:Contributions/Rootology|C]]</font>)(<font color="#156917">[[User talk:Rootology|T]]</font>) 13:44, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
:Consider this my expanded close reasoning which I'm adding to the AFD now. <font color="0D670D" face="Georgia, Helvetica">[[User:Rootology|rootology]]</font> (<font color="#156917">[[Special:Contributions/Rootology|C]]</font>)(<font color="#156917">[[User talk:Rootology|T]]</font>) 13:46, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Revision as of 13:46, 16 April 2009

Archive 1
Archive 2
Archive 3

Notes
to do

Thoughts requested.

Let me know what you think?: User:Tznkai/desk/Stub_protection_of_low_activity_BLPs--Tznkai (talk) 18:31, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


The Wikipedia Signpost  — 16 March 2009

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 23:44, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Main page image protection

Could you protect the current DYK image at Commons? Shubinator (talk) 20:06, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's off the Main Page now. Do you think you could occasionally check the DYK queues here and protect any Commons images? That way we don't have to do a temporary upload, which will be better for the servers I'd imagine. Shubinator (talk) 00:20, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I missed it. I'll try, but today in spurts aside I'll be lower activity for at least several weeks. If one sneaks by pop it on ANI, and someone can get it quick. rootology (C)(T) 05:49, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Axmann8

Is he blocked or not? The block log indicates it was set to have already expired, but he says he can't edit. I'm guessing the admin who revised the blocking mis-stated himself. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 06:23, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like he's off the hook now, but I don't know how to do an autoblock. Ask him to post the autoblock #, I think. rootology (C)(T) 06:42, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just for your future reference just go to Special:IPBlocklist and either ctrl-F to find the username in the triggered autoblock or click the "autoblock finder" link at the top of the page: http://toolserver.org/~eagle/autoblockfinder.php . cheers, –xeno (talk) 12:43, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Wikipedia:HIPPIESCANTBLOCKCONSERVATIVES

Please do not make personal attacks. Wikipedia has a strict policy against personal attacks. Attack pages and images are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who continue to create or repost such pages and images in violation of our biographies of living persons policy will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on [[Talk:Wikipedia:HIPPIESCANTBLOCKCONSERVATIVES|the talk page]] explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Cerejota (talk) 16:31, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Rootology, I deleted that page as an A3, but then I realize who created it. I'm trying to figure out the point of the redirect's name, particularly why such a long string of compounded words would be used to act as a redirect to WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND. If you can come up with a reason, feel free to undelete the article yourself. Thanks, Valley2city‽ 16:39, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, it was a bad joke from this thread, from Tarc's comment. rootology (C)(T) 16:48, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It got the ax, man. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 16:48, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:HIPPIESCANTUNDELETEREDIRECTS rootology (C)(T) 16:49, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome, dude, another redlink. In the previous comment, I almost said, "it got the ax, dude", but that's the wrong joke and besides I don't use that expression. Or do I?
Oddly enough, on Communistpedia, there are ONLY redlinks. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 16:57, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Colours for wlinks on Hippiepedia are pulled randomly from a 16,000 hue database. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:11, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OHNOESEVENTHECOOLESTADMINSCANTMAKEJOKEREDIRECTSWITHOUTEXPECTINGTHEMTOBEDELETEDBYUNSUNSUSPECTINGRCPATROLLERSWITHSOFTRIGGERSONTHECSDTABOFTWLOL also WP:OMGLOOKICANREDLINKTOO--Cerejota (talk) 02:16, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment just to clear the gigantic redlink of my watchlist.--Tznkai (talk) 04:33, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abuse filter idiots guide

My best best would be reading the article about regular expressions and taking it from there. But this is such a potent tool, it's not really smart to allow "idiots" to edit it. I've added a requested filters page instead which would hopefully help a lot. - Mgm|(talk) 19:54, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I know regex. I meant for the mechanics of the tool itself, for what to edit, where, how, and so forth. The on-wiki stuff. rootology (C)(T) 19:55, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re Steve's RFAR reply

I put in a suggestion for what its worth.[1] rootology (C)(T) 16:10, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciated. I see the case name has changed. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 20:05, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Hey Rootology, would it be appropriate to show me the content of Talk:Barack Obama/Criticism of Barack Obama so I could fairly assess its bearing on the Arb case. I actually never saw it and only became involved later. If not, I understand, and I wouldn't want to get either of us in trouble. I would however, encourage you to bring this up with the arbitrators like Fayssal, as it seems only fair that those who are clueless here get a fair chance to assess the entirety of the situation. Grsz11 21:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For anything else (subject to BLP/sensitive data etc) I'd be fine with it, but not for Obama stuff. I don't do anything tools-wise there. Looks like Matt is clerking this one, I was going to ask him after it opened for a staging copy somehow that we could use for evidence in a public fashion (with NOINDEX on it of course). rootology (C)(T) 22:02, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's an important piece of evidence that shouldn't just be restricted to helping admins. Thanks for the reply, Grsz11 22:04, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well I'm not actually due up in the rotation yet, so I'll ping the list and see who is clerking it. Also, I'll ask about restoring this page. MBisanz talk 22:06, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Matt. Grsz11 22:07, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, talked to the other clerks. If/when the case open, I or another clerk will copy and paste the largest version of that page to the evidence talk page for others to review. MBisanz talk 23:05, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Will it include edit histories, for who added what? rootology (C)(T) 23:13, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It has 5 edits total to it, and there are only 2 editors, one who added all the content and one who added a link formatting at top. Is this the right page? MBisanz talk 23:18, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think so. Let me ping Wikidemon to look here, just in case. rootology (C)(T) 23:19, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It should have been edited by User:Stevertigo, per his admission here. Grsz11 23:35, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WND

Hang on about WorldNetDaily, I'm working on it at the moment. Thanks. :) TheAE talk/sign 15:19, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I removed "right-wing" again, but left "conservative" with the sources. From what I see, they are used for the same meaning, so it is overkill. Thanks for finding the sources. :) TheAE talk/sign 15:32, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I undid you. :( Rightwing and conservative are two different concepts. Let's take it to the article talk. rootology (C)(T) 15:33, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
*shrug* I undid you again. :P Actually, I didn't undo that (and I replied on the talk page regarding it). I partially undid it (leaving right-wing), but only because I had worked on it further (especially with the refs, and also the title & website name). If you want to reply on it, that's fine, but I'm willing to let it go. :) Good to meet you, though (too bad it was over edit-warring... :P). TheAE talk/sign 16:12, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Obama articles

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Obama articles/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Obama articles/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Mailer Diablo 18:20, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 23 March 2009

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 04:51, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Happy GoneAwayNowAndRetired's Day!

GoneAwayNowAndRetired has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian,
so I've officially declared today as GoneAwayNowAndRetired's Day!
For being an excellent user who is dedicated to the English Wikipedia,
enjoy being the star of the day, dear GoneAwayNowAndRetired!

Signed,
→Dyl@n620

For a userbox you can put on your userpage, please see User:Dylan620/Today/Happy Me Day!.

For being an extremely knowledgeable, sensible, helpful, and active admin, and valuable content editor, I hereby declare that today (March 26, 2009) is your day. Enjoy! :D →Dyl@n620 00:01, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fort Lawton Riot and book promotion

It appears that Jack Hamann, or someone impersonating him, is using the Fort Lawton Riot article to help promote his book [2] [3]. I'm going to go fix the article and leave a note on his talk page but wanted to make you, an admin with some prior familiarity of the article, aware of the situation in advance in case it blows up into anything. Cla68 (talk) 23:04, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 30 March 2009

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 20:49, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

jimbo wales

The page you requested to be deleted is Jimbo's personal user page! An IP address saved it from deletion. Please do not abuse Twinkle in this way. Griffinofwales (talk) 02:52, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusionists be first against the wall when the glorious April Revolution come! rootology :  Chat  02:56, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't care if it is April Fool's or not, but I intend to keep WP as safe as possible from people like you. Please do not add unconstructive edits to WP. Thank You. Griffinofwales (talk) 03:02, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"People like you", eh? While we're being uncivil and templating the regulars, GRINCH!!!! Wikidemon (talk) 03:17, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes, we all need protecting from the evil that is Rootology. You know, once you learn that he's the opposite of Squaretology, he's not so scary. --Deskana, Champion of the Frozen Wastes 03:18, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Jimbo Wales

Please refrain from introducing inappropriate pages such as Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Jimbo Wales, to Wikipedia. Doing so is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Ipatrol (talk) 03:06, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh god... –Juliancolton | Talk 03:06, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's always one. --Deskana, Champion of the Frozen Wastes 03:08, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jimbo Wales

The MfD nomination is harmless enough, but the message at User:Jimbo Wales is borderline. That page is widely viewed by members of the general public, most of whom will not get the joke (and might mistake this for a serious issue regarding Jimbo).
I decided not to remove the message myself (as I realize that the community needs to have some fun), but I strongly believe that it's a bad idea to edit-war for the purpose of reinserting a prank that a user in good standing deemed inappropriate. Rather than reverting again, please consider settling for the talk page notice and the MfD page itself. Thank you. —David Levy 03:16, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm at a 1RR on that page, it's fair game for whomever. It was either this, or an usurp request to rename myself User:Grawp. :) rootology :  Chat  03:22, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, we may need a Checkuser and a SPI, too ;) Cheers, Jack Merridew :  Chat  03:29, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You

You have been blocked from editing for a period of pi years in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for repeated abuse of editing privileges. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below. Grsz11 03:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If your AFD joke does not earn a block it is just not good enough. Why, I think I'll create some sock accounts to add conspiracy theories to a few featured articles.Wikidemon (talk) 03:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

GoneAwayNowAndRetired (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

It was a trap and setup.

Decline reason:

You are too close to discovering the truth, We cannot allow that. Mr.Z-man 03:48, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

He is part of the Rebel Alliance and a traitor, deny unblock. Grsz11 03:50, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


You have been blocked from editing for a period of googol years in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for attempting to discover the truth. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below.
Grsz11 (C)(T)
Retired
This user is no longer active on Wikipedia.

I can't win. rootology :  Chat  04:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bye. --Deskana, Champion of the Frozen Wastes 04:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please rename me User:Vanished User 666, because I am that hardcore. \m/ rootology :  Chat  04:02, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I will only rename you to User:You take no retirement. --Deskana, Champion of the Frozen Wastes 04:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do I still get the watch? rootology :  Chat  04:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Jimbo Wales

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Jimbo Wales, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Jimbo Wales and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Jimbo Wales during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Ipatrol (talk) 04:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Someone has a case of the Mondays! rootology :  Chat  04:05, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Shit is it Monday already? Someone should have woken me up days ago. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:44, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are Joking Right?

There is no consensus for this topic ban and no reason to impose it so precipitately - the discussion hasn't even run 24 hours so this means that some editors now asleep havent had a chance to comment?. I have reversed your archive and marked the discussion unresolved. Lets let it run its course OK? Spartaz Humbug! 16:11, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 6 April 2009

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 19:37, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Aitias

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Aitias/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Aitias/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, [[Sam Korn]] (smoddy) 22:11, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CoM RfA

Thanks for giving me an actual explanation, as opposed to the useless smart-guy comment posted by a non-admin the first time. I very seldom participate in RfA's (and including my own, I've participated in one too many), so I didn't know the rules. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 05:38, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, just wanted to head something off before anyone blew their top. rootology (C)(T) 05:39, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I never blow my top. Although the steam rattles it sometimes. 0:) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 05:41, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Before you start removing comments on bureaucratic grounds, you may wish to consult this: CoM not only accepted, he ASKED to be nominated. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 05:48, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now we know it's a joke nomination. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 05:52, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And once it's formally accepted on the RFA and transcluded for everyone to see, you all can vote. rootology (C)(T) 05:54, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I especially like the part about him being "a proficient vandal fighter". Except when the vandals are coming from WorldNewsDaily, apparently. That's another good point for the "Oppose". Although maybe I should use the one that the first opponent of Neurolysis' RfA used. It turns out there was at least one arguably good reason for turning down his nomination, but "There are already too many admins" wasn't one of them. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 05:56, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not to be a smart ass, but I'd laugh if someone opposed on the grounds there are now too many RFAs. rootology (C)(T) 05:58, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good one, but I'll go you one better. Actually, the "too many admins" was a "Neutral" rather than an "Oppose". But it was stated by the same editor that nominated CoM. That's perfect. I've got my "lead story" now. :) [4] Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 06:04, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unless he's a masochist, I doubt he'll approve the nomination. He's working on his exit strategy now: [5] Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 02:06, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

A reply regarding BC's ban text. -- Ned Scott 03:55, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I have him watchlisted now for ages... rootology (C)(T) 04:01, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Gathering Storm

The edit was mainly because there is no separate Gathering Storm article, and links to disambiguation pages should generally be avoided. Sanderson had already stated "A Memory of Light: The Gathering Storm" would not be the title, and all (non blog) sources state "The Gathering Storm" would be used, Robert Jordan will of course still be credited. The article A Memory of Light generally explains the final title usage. Rehevkor ✉ 04:15, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Easter!

On behalf of the Kindness campaign, I just wanted to wish my fellow Wikipedians a Happy Easter! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 07:47, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Advice

Advice is always welcome . Thanks. (Off2riorob (talk) 23:15, 12 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Assassin's Creed II

I realized you have put a protect onto the Assassin's Creed II page. I am curious as to why. On the original Assassin's Creed talk page, there is a definite consensus to split the Sequel section into it's own article(a consensus of 9-4). Also, there is well over 6 reliable citations available for AC2. So, I humbly request that you either un-protect the Assassin's Creed II page or provide me with a good reason why it does not deserve it's own article. Thank you for your time. GroundZ3R0 002 (talk) 04:53, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, check out Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Assassin.27s_Creed_2 this discussion. If you think there's consensus and it's ready to fork out now, drop an {{editprotected}} and any admin can get it. I'm about to log off and don't have time to review the sources. Since it was AFD'd, it would otherwise need to go through WP:DRV, but if there's consensus the editprotected is just easier. rootology (C)(T) 04:57, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question For Ya

Should I consider this resolved or is this still ongoing? - NeutralHomer • Talk • April 13, 2009 @ 05:13

Done far as I'm concerned, pending that last comment from me. I got nothing else. rootology (C)(T) 05:17, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me. Thanks! - NeutralHomer • Talk • April 13, 2009 @ 05:20

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 13 April 2009

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 16:48, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Assassin's Creed II

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Assassin's Creed II. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedy-deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Stifle (talk) 08:19, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected Assassin's Creed 2

Just so that you know, I have removed the protection which you added to Assassin's Creed 2. There seems to be strong talk page consensus that recreation is warranted (see Talk:Assassin's Creed#Sequel Page Vote). If the previous issues aren't fixed it should probably be taken back to AFD, but I don't see that a DRV is required because new information has become available and there is already a strong consensus. Please correct me if I am wrong in this; I'm still a new administrator so if I made a mistake please let me know. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 14:21, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oops; just realized that there is an active DRV. I've reprotected it until a discussion can be reached there. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 14:24, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RS

Ta, glad you didn't mind. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:33, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

re: AfD

Hi Rootology. Regarding your closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Susan Boyle, I just wanted to take a moment to say I appreciate you taking the time to state the reasoning behind your closure. I think if more admins took the time to state a clear reason behind the decisions that were made, we'd have a lot less fuss and entries at WP:DRV. Job well done. (perhaps I'm making an incorrect assumption that it won't be re-opened, but one can only hope) ;) — Ched :  ?  05:26, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. If it DRVs, it DRVs... rootology (C)(T) 05:59, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Susan Boyle close

You're three days early, not one.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 05:45, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I closed at 05:07, April 16, 2009, it opened at 12:11, April 12, 2009. But apples and oranges, I suppose... :) rootology (C)(T) 05:58, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Right. AfDs run for 7 days now.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 06:01, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that in three days, the "slow news day" stories will have moved on to something else, and this woman will largely have been forgotten. The AfD could have changed quite a bit had it been allowed to run its full length. - Brian Kendig (talk) 11:27, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And I believe otherwise. Why is your crystal ball any better than mine? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 11:42, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not, but now we'll never know, because policy wasn't followed. - Brian Kendig (talk) 12:03, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You can always nominate for deletion at a later time. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 12:24, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Single AFDs nor single DRVs are ever binding in any sense of the word and can be trivially overturned with another later. "Policy" doesn't hard-require 7 days, nor did it "hard-require" 5 days before for duration. Even since I've closed, I see 2 more sources have been added, and it hasn't been DRV'd, so it seems my extrapolation so far has been thankfully right. Feel free to DRV my close, of course, if you think I was wrong. rootology (C)(T) 13:11, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poor closure, simplistic even. I guess 85% does sound impressive when you don't bother with any weighting at all. In a situation where bean counting was obviously innappropriate due to the amount of ill informed newcomer pile ons, why even mention it? Did you exclude anybody from that figure? You didn't even address the elephant in the room - a good number of the keepers you are saying with this closure have won the day with their weighty and considered policy based reasoning, demonstrated they actually have no idea what the presumption of notability is, or how it relates to 1E and current events, because they are under the utterly wrong impression that deleting the article in 6 months if the 'fuss has died down' is actually something we do around here. Point me to a single policy that says that. I can at least respectfully disagree with people who think this woman has achieved lasting notability, but how can ideas like this be openly tolerated? Stating that she is not a private person, and that she is in the next audition, and that she might actually sell an album, were utterly irrelevant to this debate, I am at a loss as to why you mention these and not that. Also, there was a complete disregard for the merge/redirect opinions. As for closing it early after early closure was hotly opposed multiple times, that speaks for itself as just not necessary. Anyway, a good read for next time is the essay section Benefits of recentist articles. When you read that, and read this article, it just makles you want to die inside. MickMacNee (talk) 13:14, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mick, if that makes you die inside, I don't think leaving it open three more days would have helped. :-) This isn't the Star Wars kid, who did one thing and wished he hadn't -- this is someone who dared to grab at her dream, succeeded, and is running with it.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:30, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll concede that when a deletionist doesn't get his way, he dies a little bit. It's like depriving him of food. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 13:37, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Root, I thought I was going to blast you when I came here, but MacNee is scorching you more than even I would. Keeping the article is not a terrible decision, because consensus does enter into these things, but you're all wet on the reasoning, in my arrogant opinion. The "event" in WP:BLP1E should be considered broadly, encompassing related appearances on the same show that essentially are the same experience and depend on her initial appearance (the "event" is really "her appearances on the show" because all the coverage will treat it as essentially the same thing). The strongest Keep argument, it seems to me, is a bit common-sensical: existence of articles that talk about her life as a whole. With enough of those kind of profile pieces, it's hard for the Delete side to say there's not enough detailed sourcing covering this subject as a whole, which is the point of WP:BLP1E. You are right about expecting more coverage in a case like this, which is another common-sense point, and common sense is supposed to enter into this. So you're really not all wet, although it was fun to say. -- Noroton (talk) 13:42, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Read below. I'm one of the far more rigid people on BLP generally, so I really don't think BLP1E counts here. Read below... rootology (C)(T) 13:44, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First off, BLP is not a factor here in any level, to just clear that, and I'll explain why BLP1E is a false argument here. And again, feel free to DRV it. I fundamentally agreed more with the collective weight and opinions from the Keepers being more in line with our history, precedents, and principles, and ideas like this should be openly tolerated, since the presumption that "Internet notability" (what does that even mean?) is "less important" than "real world" notability--that's really what you and many Deleters here are arguing, no matter how it's dressed up--are naive attitudes.
The Internet IS the real world at this point, for better or worse, no matter how hard or vigorously some people like to poo poo the entire web 2.0 thing. It's nothing to do with our needlessly rigid, increasingly irrelevant--each month, it fades in social value as an internal concept--"Recentism" ideas. The press is faster now since it doesn't rely on the permanence of physical media to deliver news. Recentism because of this is a wholly subjective thing, with too many people valuing "physical" news in some vague way over "transient" news, with "transient" being the Internet. Again, what does that even mean? It's a nonsense argument. A well-maintained bit of data that is properly preserved in an open format will last theoretically forever. A newspaper will eventually rot away and crumble. But you see where this is all going?
It boils down to Deletionists vs. Inclusionists, and the foolish idea that an AFD or DRV is binding forever. I closed the AFD as I saw where it was heading, and where it had gone per policy. Consensus clearly supported Keeping already; I agreed that the Keepers had won the arguments and day--and not just by numbers, Wikidemon, Ched, the first few sentences by Stude62 (painfully true, AGF aside), Raven1977, and J Van Meter. BLP1E is absolutely a false argument here as Iakeb points out: her performance; the significance and separate reporting on her unique YouTube popularity after, and since then we have her being signed to a record label and when (in a week?) she performs again we'll have even more events/details. Each passing day there were more and more sources about Boyle visible online and in searches, so presumably as well in "old world" media like physical newspapers, of course. I closed based on what has come before, the opinions expressed, my interpretation of policy, the sourcing there (and growing--23 refs today, 21 when I closed), and the fact that 1) she's not a BLP1E, she's a BLP4E now unless she drops dead before her appearances on the actual show contests, and 2) every single time one of these social culture articles like hers gets AFD'd, if the person isn't really a BLP1E--like hers, they are virtual always a better article later as the sourcing really does not stop.
Many people like to AFD quick, hard, and fast, in the presumption that it will keep something "out" of WP longer. Nonsense--DRV is too smart to allow gaming like that in any pointless Deletionist vs Inclusionist content race. If something isn't a one-off or Deep Fancrust, sourcing will always build over time--it's inevitable, like the tides themselves. And like the tides themselves, the consensus backed by policy was pretty darn clear on the Boyle AFD: keep. Deleting Boyle today would also, in my personal opinion, be a completely pointless strategic move of no benefit to anyone. The day after her next appearance on the show, or the minute the media comes out with the information on the forthcoming album, it would sail through DRV so fast that people's heads would spin. Why nuke the article for a week (or two) then? It would be a pointless procedural exercise that would lead to rules-jockey admins fighting people trying to recreate it for the 10-14 days, and pointless things like ANI alerts. As for your wording of it being a poor close, thanks. But it's not poor because you disagree with it's outcome. rootology (C)(T) 13:44, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Consider this my expanded close reasoning which I'm adding to the AFD now. rootology (C)(T) 13:46, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:GoneAwayNowAndRetired&oldid=284209730"