User talk:Arbitrarily0

why did you delete ken kelln?

I know when I first posted (within a few hours), there was several good points on how I hadn't adequately expressed the notability... I can make it more wordsmithier or something... Ken is a pioneer and innovator in his field, and highly recognized, more than meeting the criteria for biography notability!

Treesforourchildren (talk) 14:48, 30 December 2009 (UTC)Treesforourchildren

Hi Treesforourchildren! Consensus made at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ken Kelln was to delete the article because it lacked notability. As Glenfarclas stated, he's "not individually notable apart from his company". With the exception of your !vote, there were none in support of keeping the article. Can you prove that he meets the notability guideline for people? Let me know, cheers! Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 16:37, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Hey Aritrarily0... I believe that the notability was proved with my edits AFTER the request-to-deletes were made (dec.23)... Ken HAS won a notable award by an assoication of geoscientists and engineers, as well as long been seen as a leader in his field. He runs the second-oldest solar company in CANADA. And in 1984, thanks to his efforts Saskatchewan was a world leader in passive solar (I am seeking a reference for this before I edit it).

Do the new references NOT prove this??? Treesforourchildren (talk) 07:59, 2 January 2010 (UTC)Treesforourchildren

Okay, Treesforourchildren, if you'd like to challenge the deletion discussion further, I'll recommend you to Wikipedia:Deletion review. You'll need to be able to prove that "significant new information has come to light since a deletion and the information in the deleted article would be useful to write a new article." Let me know if you have any questions, and good luck! Cheers, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:32, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Requesting adoption

Hello! I was looking for someone with a lot of Wikipedia-related experience to adopt me. I'm fairly competent technically already, so I've been able to figure a lot of the basics out by myself. My primary concern will be of a dispute resolution/disciplinary nature as I originally made a Wikipedia account to try to bring balance to an extremely heated and politicized topic. In the short time I've had an account (about 2 days) my talk page has already started filling up, one of the people in particular is rather notorious on Wikipedia as an admin who abuses his position and edits articles in a biased manner, and who is often (and currently) a named party in ARBCOMs.

I'm not hoping for someone to personally intercede on my behalf in the event this person or any from his 'camp' steps over the line, so please do not mistake this adoption request as admin shopping, but I am anticipating the need for quite a bit of advice in the near future as I'm not the type of person to shy away from conflict when I know people are treating me unfairly - quite the contrary it makes me all the more determined to stick to my guns and dig in even deeper.

The effort and time I've been putting forth to familiarize myself with Wikipedia in order to contribute to this specific set of highly politicized and somewhat hijacked articles, have introduced me to the Wikipedia community which was unknown to me before as a casual user/reader. I do have a hope that I can stick around far into the future and contribute to articles dealing with a wide variety of subjects, especially those articles which are more friendly and less politically heated by nature.

Also, I apologize for having jumped the gun and adding my name to your list of the Adoptees, I misread and thought it was a list of people seeking adoption, I removed my name when I realized my error. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, +-Adam.T.Historian (talk) 01:45, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Adam, I like seeing that you've taken an interest in the wiki, and I would be glad to adopt you. I'll be happy to give you all the advice I can, just let me know. Don't worry, I've added you back to my list, and updated your userbox. Happy editing, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 16:24, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Great! Thanks a lot for your time, patience, and general selflessness in your ongoing pursuit to share knowledge with newer users. +-Adam.T.Historian (talk) 19:17, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Bot task request

As suggested at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Death#Automatically tagging certain categories, please tag the talk page of all existent categories listed at Wikipedia:People by year/Reports/All death categories with {{WikiProject Death}}. --Geniac (talk) 02:52, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Sure thing, I responded back here. Cheers, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 16:56, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

re Close vs. relist

I relisted, as there was a new concern brought up about whether those new sources introduced were reliable/secondary/independent enough to go towards notability - and I thought it could have been useful to have a bit more input after that comment. However, I have no objection to your close - and I agree with your assessment of the consensus. :) No worries, Cirt (talk) 18:53, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Again, no worries. :P Cirt (talk) 19:06, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for checking in

Thanks, I'm doing pretty well! Not doing much over the winter break, but I'm bound to start up soon. Happy new year to you too! Saebjorn! 19:19, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Glad to here it, and you too! Always feel free to stop by with anything I can help you with, cheers! Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:37, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Pre-Siberian American Aborigines

Hi, I was quite shocked to see "Pre-Siberian American Aborigines" deleted. I did not see the nomination for deletion and therefore did not have a chance to defend the article. Now that it is gone, I cannot even see whether the claims of the "killers" have any merit or not. All that I can say is: (1) it is by no means original research. Alternative theories of the population of the Americas have been held by reputable scientists and published in scientific publications; and not by me or by any friend of mine. The article was merely reporting on them. (2) The article (presumably) lacked references simply because it (like many good articles in WP) was written before WP had the polilcy and means to include them; and you cannot expect that Wikipedia's 10,000 volunteer editors will rush to provide references to some 2,000,000 articles, just because a handfule of editors decided that they should do so. (3) The claim that there is no Google reference is totally irresponsible. The name of the article was made up so as to reflect the collection of various theories, but of course each theory was published under its own name, or no name at all. (4) The article has survived several years of scrutiny by readers, many of whom presumably knew something about the subject. That should say something about its seriousness.
It is scary to seee that perfectly good articles are being quickly and permanetly deleted after such a careless review by irresponsible editors who apparently do not know the subject and do not care to do their homework. How do you think that an editor feels when he has to go through this? Every such mistake does more damage to Wikipedia than 1000 silly articles would.
Please restore the article and let responsible editors take care of it. Thank you. All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 16:26, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Jorge Stolfi! Don't worry, the deletion was by no means permanent. My job was only to determine consensus on the deletion discussion, which I found to be delete because of original research concerns. Based on the comments at the discussion, most (including myself) would prefer to see the article rewritten than stay as a redlink. Would you be willing to start a new article? I'd be happy to help you! Let me know, cheers! Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 18:41, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the reply. At least please restore the article to my user space so that I can see what is wrong with it.
By the way, the article was nominated on the AfD on December 27 2009, then deleted on January 2, 2010. It so happens that *did* work on wikipedia during those days (terminal wikipediaholism); but I have over a thousand articles in my watchlist, and I cannot check every change in every article every day. I didn't even get a warning in my talk page.
The deletion histeria that has taken over Wikipedia is insane. The AfD process never was a "consensus" in any reasonable sense of the work]d. It was designed by deletionists and is inherently biased in their favor; the majority of the editors who are likely to vote in it are those who keep the AfD page on their watchlist — which obviously are mostly deletionists. Indeed, the last few years the AfD seems to have become a playground for editors who take pleasure in deleting other people's hard work. Extrapolating from my sample, I would guess that tens of thousands of perfectly good articles have been deleted after irresponsible reviews, like those of that article. Sigh. All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 04:16, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi again, the article has been restored to User:Jorge Stolfi/Pre-Siberian American Aborigines so that you can make the appropriate fixes (would you mind letting me know before you decide to move it back?). As for your concerns with the AfD process, unfortunately there's not much I can do about it. I do my best to determine a consensus on arguments that are based on policy, but I'm not perfect, and either is the process itself. You have valid concerns, and you might consider bringing them up more publicly. Best regards, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 22:09, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much! All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 22:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

PS. Er, could you please restore the talk page too? The tags claim that the issues are discussed there... Thanks, and all the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 22:27, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done - yes in fact there is some discussion there. :) Cheers, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 22:37, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Vanessa George

Hi Arbitrarily0

I saw you deleted the Vanessa George page. I'd very much like to speak to you about this. I'm the crime reporter for the Plymouth Herald where the incident took place and covered the case quite extensively. Please contact me on ceve@theplymouthherald.co.uk. Many thanks

Carl Eve —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.109.254.19 (talk) 17:06, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Carl, you can use Special:EmailUser/Arbitrarily0 to contact me via email (although you might need to create an account for this). Would you mind doing that? Otherwise I'd be happy to discuss non-private matters here. Cheers, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 23:16, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Adoption

Hello, would you please adopt me?. I already added myself to the list. I like to fight vandalism on wikipedia. Thanks!--GeneralCheese 01:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, will do :) Please let me know where you'd like to start, or if there's anything I can help you with. I'm always glad to help, happy editing! Cheers, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Oahspe page: Thank You

I want to thank you for your work , in particular concerning the Oahspe page.Vanais (talk) 11:48, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Your welcome, and thank you for stopping by! Take care, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 22:16, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Fabrik

would it be appropriate to delete the Fabrik redirect? If so, how would I go about doing that? I don't see the need to keep the redirect for a minor plugin that can only be used with the main application. 16x9 (talk) 02:04, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi 16x9! In my opinion, deletion of this redirect should probably be avoided. For one, it is holding the history of the content that was merged and so should be preserved. Secondly, it allows there to be links to the software itself, rather than just Joomla#Fabrik. Does this make sense? Cheers, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:27, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

That helps a little. The first part helps more as there is a record of the merge that is visible...though it seems a lot of WP:UNDUE is offered to this one plugin/addon. I doubt anyone would seriously need to search for fabrik alone when it cannot be used without joomla as it is a plugin. Thanks for the advice. 16x9 (talk) 05:10, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

True, but even if the Fabrik information in the Joomla article was eventually condensed or removed, it's still important to retain the history. Your welcome, and thanks for bringing this up. Cheers, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 14:14, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you...

Inre this diff and the barnstar, thank you. It may not be the next few hours, but I will incorporate the sources into the artcle. By the by... do you know any Spanish-reading Wikipedians? I found what I believe may be decent sources [1] for a Spanish Animated film [2]. I'll fight through with google translate or babblefish if I must. Warm regards, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:25, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't know of any Spanish-reading Wikipedians off hand. I looked around for some last night, and will gladly contact one as long as you haven't tried to 'fight with google translate' yet. Let me know, cheers! Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 14:10, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

And in appreciation...

Well... this is what remained at the close of the AFD... and THIS is now. We both know that if it had been left the way it was, it would have been tossed back to AFD within weeks... with cries of WP:NOEFFORT. So... all it did take was a little real effort to turn a sow's ear Stub into a silk purse Start or maybe even B Class. Oh, it'll never be GA or FA... but I think it will survive. Thank you for the encouragement and moral support. They mean a lot. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:37, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh no problem, if the encyclopedia could talk it would thank you too :) The work you do here is great, keep it up! I'm sure this article (which looks great now, by the way) is just one of many that has greatly benifited from your time. Thank you! Happy editing, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 14:04, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Keyontyli Goffney Deletion

I would like to suggest that you restore the entry on Keyontyli Goffney. The discussion was by no means unambiguous in its result. I think that we are dealing with a borderline case here: to be sure, the subject's main notability (in mainstream culture, one could say) resides in his arrest. However, he was well-known in the American gay subculture well before that, as attested by his appearances in numerous magazines, both pornographic and non-pornographic. To me, as an editor who is attempting to create a record of American gay culture, it is very frustrating to see my carefully documented work deleted (not for the first time) by editors who do not appear to be familiar with gay life. I would go so far as to say that there is a certain bias against gay articles, which are subject to much closer scrutiny than other contributions. I could point to dozens of entries that I came across just in the past week that are stubs, badly written, without proper documentation, etc. etc. and which nonetheless no one appears to be eager to delete. If you restore the article and someone else nominates it for deletion after a while, perhaps we can involve more people in the discussion. Thanks. GBataille (talk) 10:37, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi GBataille, sorry for the delayed response. In my opinion, considering the weaker arguments in favor of keeping, deletion was the best closure option. Therefore, I can't agree to restore the article. As DGG said in the discussion, there is "no sourced indication that [his] career itself is notable." In other words, reliable, third party sources on his career are lacking. I hope this helps, cheers! Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 23:24, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I have made some improvements to the Keyontyli Goffney entry, which is currently at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:GBataille/Keyontyli_Goffney. For instance, I found a detailed article (several pages) on Goffney's career in Details magazine, a well-known Condé Nast publication that belongs in the mainstream of American media. Would you have a look at the article and tell me whether you think it might be ready to be moved back into the mainspace? Thank you. GBataille (talk) 19:47, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. Well GBataille, I'm going to recommend you take this one to deletion review. By presenting your case there (your case being that "significant new information has come to light since a deletion and the information in the deleted article would be useful to write a new article"), it will give more editors than just myself a chance to review the situation. Let me know if you need help with this, cheers! Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 19:52, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestion. I just requested the deletion review. I hope it works.GBataille (talk) 14:05, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

And it looks like the article is back to the namespace, good work! Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:15, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

please restore New Industrial Revolution

Greetings, I noticed that you deleted a page that I created, New Industrial Revolution. I have already restored this page, therefore by wiki standards does it not receive some reprieve from arbitrary deletions? Please let me a message on my talk page. I have enlisted the help of other administrators and editors to bring this page up to snuff for wikipedia standards.

Thank you, 137.229.230.227 (talk) 22:15, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Greetings! Please let me assure you that the article wasn't necessarily arbitrarily deleted; please see discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Industrial Revolution. I hope this has helped clear things up. Cheers, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:33, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Jeylina ever

I've created a new article on Jeylina Ever from Wikipedia.fr and her personal website. Best regards Marieange22 (talk) 17:33, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Greetings, thanks for letting me know, I've responded here. Cheers, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 22:40, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Maybe are you transphobic?Rmarchet (talk) 17:32, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Rmarchet, let me assure you that no such bias exists. I deleted the article strictly as of consensus here. Regards, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:20, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Archiving

Hi there again! How did you make the archive box for your user talk page? I can't find the right template... The Arbiter^★_★^★ 18:37, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Archives
August-December 2008 January-April 2009 May-October 2009 November-December 2009

The Arbiter!! Welcome back :) Alright, I posted mine here (it's a custom version though). Also check out {{Archives}}, that should work for you as well. Let me know if I can help, cheers! Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:16, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! The Arbiter^★_★^★ 21:54, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Yessir, any time! Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 22:34, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Ned Kelly

I am trying to do a protected edit and wiki tells me to put my request on the 'talk' page but i cannot find any reference to 'talk' except "my talk" i assume this is not correct Can you help please below is a copy of my request [the page to be edited is Ned Kelly} — Preceding unsigned comment added by RachelandBronwen (talk • contribs) signed by Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:17, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

"Edit Request" {{editsemiprotected}} please replace last line of Capture Trial and Execution by the following quotation from the Argus Newspaper of the day =The Petition to Save Ned= [as reported in The Argus newspaper 9/11/1880] “[William] Gaunson [solicitor and politician, and member, Reprieve Committee] and the Kelly sisters were admitted to a retiring room, and the former handed Captain Le Patourel [secretary to the governor] the petitions he had been getting signed for presentation to the Governor, stating that they contained 32,434 signatures.” “An examination of the petitions showed that they were signed principally in pencil, and by illiterate people, whilst whole pages were evidently written by one person. “The Executive of course determined to adhere to their decision—that the convict shall be executed on Thursday morning. This having been communicated to the prisoner's relatives they left, and returned to the Robert Burns Hotel. They were accompanied, as before, by a crowd and during the whole afternoon and evening the hotel was rushed. Immediately after their return James Kelly addressed the crowd, from the door, and told them that " it was not all over yet"—a remark that was loudly cheered.”

I've taken the liberty of moving this request over to Talk:Ned Kelly#The Petition to Save Ned Josh Parris 05:44, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a lot Josh. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:17, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Concerning adoptees

Some of my adoptees edited for a while, but then just stopped...From your experience, do they come back? Some examples for me are user:Newchess, user:RosieClarke, and user:Shadowed Soul. Should I just drop them? The Arbiter^★_★^★ 23:34, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, not RosieClarke. I just talked to her via email… The Arbiter^★_★^★ 23:38, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I've experienced this same problem too. You could just remove them from the list on your userpage, but I wouldn't necessarily "drop them" (in case they come back). This will give you an excuse to seek out more! Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:11, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Mukti

Thanks for the changes. They were helpful. Raj2004 (talk) 02:16, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Anytime! :) -Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 03:29, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Closing AFDs

Please remember, when closing AFDs, such as Cyber-Ark, to remove the AFD notice from the top of the article. Stifle (talk) 10:27, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Stifle. Normally this script takes care of it, but because the AfD notice was added twice (first time), the banner wasn't removed automatically, and I forgot to check. Small matter, but thanks for taking care of it. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 14:06, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Yama (Hinduism)

Hi, I have had problems inserting reference 1 for Yama (Hinduism). The reference does not show up as a footnote and I get an weird message once the page is displayed. Can you help? Thanks,Raj2004 (talk) 15:51, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Fixed :) One of the reference tags was missing a '>', that's all. Happy to help, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 20:36, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again. I wrote a long article on Karma in Hinduism. Some theistic traditions of Hinduism believe that God has appointed administrators such as Shani to reward and punish during one's life; this is one explanation in their view for the ups and downs in life!!! Yama on the other hand, deals with unfinished business; he deals with you after you have departed!!

God bless you. Raj2004 (talk) 21:39, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

No problem, do take care. Regards, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 22:23, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Apollon (GUI)‎‎

Can restore it to my user space? I'd like to merge it to giFT. There are sources for that as I indicated in the AfD, and Joe Chill agreed. Only the supporters of old WP:NSOFT voted delete there. Pcap ping 22:12, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Sure, sure, sure. I've restored it to User:Pohta ce-am pohtit/Apollon (GUI). Thanks for doing this, cheers! Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 22:22, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Relisting AfD's

You relisted an AfD for WP:Articles for deletion/Young Hot Rod (2nd nomination). It had already been relisted once. This article was previously deleted. I nominated it, one editor has !voted delete. Nobody has even mentioned keeping it. I thought that the practice was going to be that unopposed AfD's were going to be treated similar to PROD's in that if it is unopposed after 7 days, it would be considered a delete. Did I misunderstand that? Niteshift36 (talk) 23:34, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Hm, you may have some misunderstanding. The official relist policy can be found here, but for the most part, only third-time relists are to be avoided. In the case of WP:Articles for deletion/Young Hot Rod (2nd nomination), I relisted only because no discussion occurred since User:Tim Song relisted, and I trust his judgment. Unlike PROD, nominations without comment are closed as 'no consensus'. Worse case scenario, a second relist will only generate more discussion, no worries. Take care, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:51, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Just so you don't think I'm crazy, the discussion of that proposal is here. [3]. I didn't follow it through. I thought it had been implemented because I've seen admins closing AFD's stating that without opposition, it was being treated as uncontested, similar to a PROD. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:16, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

XD - well I'm glad I could help, take care! Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 17:12, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Curious about your rollback requirements

I notice you are one of the admins willing to grant rollback rights. Are there any general requirements necessary to be granted rollback? I looked at the rollback page and didn't see anything. I'm curious if there are any standards at all, even unwritten ones. Auntie E. (talk) 01:16, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Well there aren't any specific requirements, just that the editor is familiar with reverting and dealing with vandalism. Other than that it's at the administrator's jurisdiction. You, for example, seem to be an editor of whom I'd be willing to grant rollback rights, if you'd like them. Just let me know, or if you have any other questions. Cheers, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:27, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Autoreviewer

I am not sure I agree with giving autoreviewer rights to Nkf31. This ed. has a COI with World Scientific, a relatively minor publisher, and has been adding multiple articles on their journals which I and Crusio and Abductive are busy removing--not just a few, but most of them. I'm known for being particularly tolerant in this area, but journals which are established for only a year or two and are in no major index are extremely unlikely to be notable. I & others have told him this, but he continues to add the articles. In a sense it does not matter, for the several concerned eds will surely check every article he enters, but autoreviewer is at least an apparent open invitation to spam. DGG ( talk ) 04:30, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree - my mistake, I completely forgot to investigate this, so thanks for letting me know. Take care, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 16:56, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Need your help again

Hi, ArbitrailyO, I am editing the article on Hanuman. Can you please remove footnotes 15 and 17 referring to Catherine Ludvik without destroying footnotes 14 and 17 referring to Philip Lutgendorf? Also I would like to actually insert this correct page link at pg. 141, " http://books.google.com/books?id=fVFC2Nx-LP8C&pg=PT155&dq=hanuman+shani+Ravana&cd=1#v=onepage&q=hanuman%20shani%20Ravana&f=false "

Thanks, Raj2004 (talk) 15:29, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

1. ^ Lutgendorf, Philip (2007). Hanuman's tale: the messages of a divine monkey. Oxford University Press US. p. 141. http://books.google.co.in/books?id=fVFC2Nx-LP8C&pg=PT333&dq=avatara+Hanuman&lr=&client=firefox-a&cd=1#v=snippet&q=avatara%20%20Shiva&f=false.
2. ^ Catherine Ludvík. Hanumān in the Rāmāyaṇa of Vālmīki and the Rāmacaritamānasa of Tulasī Dāsa. pp. 10-11. http://books.google.co.in/books?id=KCXQN0qoAe0C&pg=PA10&dq=Hanuman+Rudra&client=firefox-a&cd=2#v=onepage&q=Hanuman%20Rudra&f=false.
3. ^ Lutgendorf, Philip (2007). Hanuman's tale: the messages of a divine monkey. Oxford University Press US. p. 141. http://books.google.co.in/books?id=fVFC2Nx-LP8C&pg=PT333&dq=avatara+Hanuman&lr=&client=firefox-a&cd=1#v=snippet&q=avatara%20%20Shiva&f=false.
4. ^ Catherine Ludvík. Hanumān in the Rāmāyaṇa of Vālmīki and the Rāmacaritamānasa of Tulasī Dāsa. pp. 10-11. http://books.google.co.in/books?id=KCXQN0qoAe0C&pg=PA10&dq=Hanuman+Rudra&client=firefox-a&cd=2#v=onepage&q=Hanuman%20Rudra&f=false.

Thanks! Raj2004 (talk) 15:28, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

How about this, Raj. Try to make all of the changes above yourself first, then I'll go back and fix any mistakes. Does that sound okay to you? That way you'll start to learn how citations work. Let me know, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 17:08, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, ArbitrarilyO I did give it a try. I fixed the citations. It should be okay now. Thanks. Raj2004 (talk) 17:06, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Excellent!! Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 04:22, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colombian voice actor

I am requesting that you re-open this for it to gain more consensus otherwise I'm going to DRV.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:39, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Ryulong! I'm not going to stop you from taking it to deletion review, but my suggestion would be to renominate each article individually. This will, not only as you suggested, help gain more consensus, but it will also gain a consensus that is specific to each individual. Happy editing my friend, take care. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:26, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm just going to prod tag each one, as that is a hell of a lot easier than opening up 30 separate AFD discussions that all say the same thing.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Well it looks like they all went back through AfD anyways. Take care, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 13:42, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Jason Upton

Hey man...I noticed that the Jason Upton Article was marked as AfD then deleted. I would like to work on a new page since the old did have a bunch of problems and a total lack of references. I probably wont be starting that project until next month, but wanted your opinion on how to make that article better or if you just believe it doesn't belong at all.Travisharger 16:32, 21 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Travisharger (talk • contribs)

Hi Travis! Unfortunately, consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jason Upton was three to one in favor of deletion. If you think that there are references that didn't surface during the deletion discussion you might consider seeing deletion review. Are there any references you can show me as an example? Cheers, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 03:06, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

i tried....

Inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anastasia 1997, I suggest a page move from the incorrect title of Anastasia (1997 Russian film) to the correct one of The Secret of Anastasia.... and then a redirect to the actually sourcable production company UAV Entertainment. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:22, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree, and have closed as such since no one has opposed your stance. Cheers, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 16:46, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks much. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:02, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Anytime! Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 03:03, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Why was this page deleted?

"Satellite Image Comparison" ‎

This page has been targeted multiple times for deletion. It is a supporting page for the Water vapor article, and notes this in the page and in its page discussion. Additionally, the page also scientifically supports arguments in the discussion of Talk:Water vapor. It also, requests that people don't randomly slap tags for deletion in the page discussion as it is part of a larger project that is under large scrutiny and under constant update, including the page itself.

All of this is noted in the page discussion, and is apparent that the discussion page has been repeatedly ignored. Could you please reinstate this page and its discussion.

—Will research for food (talk) 15:48, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Also perusing the list of "desenters", at least one has been identified as a "sock puppet" by Wikipedia. —Will research for food (talk) 15:59, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Greetings friend! Unfortunately, there was clear consensus to delete the article (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Satellite Image Comparison) - is there something I can clear up for you? I'd be happy to! Regards, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 04:21, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Water vapor is heavily sock-puppet/ip attacked. This page in question is a supporting page for Water Vapor, and was targeted for deletion 1 week after I stopped editing on all of wikipedia. If you feel you can't then don't, but could you move it over to my user space so I may work on it as it supports a larger group effort:

WikiProject: Meteorology and Weather Events

—Will research for food (talk) 17:59, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The problem Will, is that the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Satellite Image Comparison resulted in a unanimous consensus to delete, because the subject is 'non-encyclopedic'. Do you dispute this consensus? Do you think that this consensus was wrongly founded? Let me know, and regards! Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Copy of deleted article?

Hey Arbitrarily. Would you provide me a copy of List of longest-lasting empires, which was just deleted? Swarm^Talk 11:19, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Swarm! May I first ask what you would like a copy for? Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 03:02, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Right, I should have included that in my original post, sorry. I actually just got a copy from another admin, so don't worry about the request, but I'll still explain myself: The deletion discussion seemed a little...odd to me. In my opinion there wasn't a strong enough argument or consensus for delete, and I was considering requesting a deletion review, but I would rather review the article's content a little before I decided on that. The strongest delete argument was basically that since it was a list of empires, and there is no clear definition of what an "empire" is, the article was inherently original research and such an article could never be maintained. Anyway, I'm going to review it's content and think about it some more. Thanks. Swarm^Talk 03:05, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good to me! Take care friend! Best regards, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 04:09, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

List of BrainSurge episodes

Why you deleted brainsurge episodes? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Momos555 (talk • contribs) 20:28, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Momos! List of BrainSurge episodes was deleted because of consensus to do so at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of BrainSurge episodes. Let me know if you have any questions about this, cheers! Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 04:13, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

WILL YOU ADOPT ME?

:) please (DJO CODY (talk) 01:12, 27 January 2010 (UTC))

I'd be happy to! You can start by trying to add yourself to this list - let me know if you need help with this. Happy editing, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Discussion invitation

Click here to automatically add this project to your watchlist

Hi Arbitrarily0, I would like to invite you and anyone watching who shares an interest in moving forward constructively to a discussion about Biographies of Living People

New editors' lack of understanding of Wikipedia processes has resulted in thousands of BLPs being created over the last few years that do not meet BLP requirements. We are currently seeking constructive proposals on how to help newcomers better understand what is expected, and how to improve some 48,000 articles about living people as created by those 17,500 editors, through our proper cleanup, expansion, and sourcing. These constructive proposals might then be considered by the community as a whole at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people. Please help us: >> User:Ikip/Discussion about creation of possible Wikiproject:New Users and BLPs <<

Ikip 05:06, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

(refactored) Ikip 04:51, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks much, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:02, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

your welcome much, hope to hear from you some more ;-) Ikip 04:51, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Copy of Deleted Page

Hi, your in the list of admins who will provide copies of deleted pages. I was wondering, would you send me a copy of the deleted page Camponhoyle? I am working with several other editors to track down a sockpuppeteer so I would like it for evidence. Thanks Quiggers1P (talk) 20:49, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Quiggers1P, there's not much to restore. It contains one edit by User:Bogies gfhg jghmhj with the content "Camponhoyleing is when people are acused of suckpuppetry because they type camponhoyle on a page", and that's it. Hope that helped, cheers! Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:01, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Reverted changes

Looking at the information displayed in the page Puerto Rico national basketball team, I thought it would be better to create the page Puerto Rico men´s national basketball team. I included my explanation of the why I did it at the Edit summary and the Discussion page. Since there are possibilities for a unified page with men´s, women´s and junior´s information, I did not wanted to just change the name, but added instead a redirection to the new page, with the "r with possibilities" clause. Since my changes were reverted, there is a duplicate of the page under the new name. What can we do? --Coquidragon (talk) 02:03, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Aye, I'm so sorry - feel free to revert my revision. Do take care, again, sorry. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:08, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Can you please write to User:5 albert square who also reverted my changes? She put in my user talk a Level 2 warning and accussed me of vandalism. I know it is done automatically but still... --Coquidragon (talk) 02:25, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Problem has been resolved! I´m sorry for any inconvenience.--Coquidragon (talk) 22:09, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Excellent! Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 17:37, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Autoreviewer request

Could you please review my request again? --Saki ^talk 07:53, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Whoops, sorry for the delay. Yes, I've responded there, thanks for letting me know. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 14:21, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Autoreviewer

Hello Arbitrarily0, I wish to apply for the Autoreviewer rights as i believe its a waste of time for new pages i create to be double checked, but ultimately thats not for me to decide. Is the 75 edit count a requirement to qualify or just a general rule of thumb? I’m interested in applying, as I believe I meet the requirements for notability and citations. But I’ve only created 58 pages. Could you please go over my history and advise me on whether its worthwhile me applying. Kind regards Wiki ian 22:10, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Ian, it sure looks like you're a good candidate for autoreviewer to me! Since User:UpstateNYer has already granted this permission to you, all that's left for me to do is to encourage you to keep creating good articles: nice work! Take care, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:34, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar!!!

File:Allaroundamazingbarnstar3.png		All Around Amazing Barnstar
		For being the model of a Wikipedian that I want to be! The Arbiter★★★ 23:43, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Sir Wayne! Thank you very much - that's a incredibly thoughtful surprise that will be much appreciated for a long time. Maybe there's one heading your way in the future, but I can only guarantee it'll be when you least expect it. Take care, and don't hesitate to bring more discussions here; they are always most welcome! Cheers, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:41, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Sir Wayne? It's been a while since I was Mr. Wayne. :) Hmm...I like Sir Wayne, though...maybe another username change? Nah... The Arbiter^★_★^★ 01:58, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

;-) ...whatever you might like to call yourself, the point is: thank you! Take care, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 13:41, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Rollback

Thanks --Wexeb → 21:10, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

No problem! Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 23:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Infonic

Protect, vandalism, please --Wexeb ^(Talk) 14:24, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Wexeb! Please file a request at requests for page protection if the problem continues. Cheers, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 14:03, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Croposition

It's pretty important, when you remove a PROD tag, that you explain why. Woogee (talk) 06:15, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Woogee! The PROD tag was contested at requests for undeletion (see section), where articles deleted via proposed deletion are automatically restored on request. User:Accounting4Taste (the user who tagged the article) has already been notified of it's restoration. Please let me know if I can clear anything else up about this, or if you have more concerns. Do take care, cheers! Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 14:00, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

You ought to put a comment in the edit summary when you remove a prod. Woogee (talk) 19:53, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand you on this one Woogee. The edit summary "proposed deletion contested"^[4] was intended to reference WP:UND, where the procedure is that articles deleted via proposed deletion can be restored even without a good rationale from the requesting user. I hope this helps, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 23:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the PROD tag can be removed without a reason, but it would certainly make a lot more sense, as well as being more friendly, if, when you remove the PROD tag, you say why. Agreed, you don't have to, but doing so is friendlier. Woogee (talk) 23:09, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

The thing, Woogee, is that it's not under my own rationale to restore the page, but the rationale of the requester at WP:UND. For that reason, I tried to leave a concise summary that would both point to that request and cite the procedure for restoring pages deleted via proposed deletion. Does this help make more sense? Cheers, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 23:44, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Physics tagging

Can you add to all the article in the Category:Physicist stubs with the template: {{Physics|auto=yes|class=stub|bio=yes}}. Thanks. --Siddhant (talk) 07:27, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Can do! I'll get around to this very shortly. Cheers, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 13:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Ugh, sorry - 'technical difficulties' are really delaying this. Sorry about that, but I plan to have all the articles tagged by Wednesday. I hope this is okay, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 20:06, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

No problem, I'll wait. Btw, what kind of 'technical difficulties'? Just curious. --Siddhant (talk) 16:25, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

AutoWikiBrowser (which the bot runs through) refuses to start-up properly on my machine. I'm trying to re-install it at the moment though. Don't worry, on my word, the tagging will get done. Cheers, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 16:53, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

It seems that the problem is more extensive than I thought (see here and here), but I'm trying to get to the bottom of it. So sorry about all this, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 12:57, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi

I enjoy editing, and have served as proofreader for a publishing company when we made corrections with a pencil! The technical part of things like aFd listings, and even listing my name on your page as an adoptee, totally confuses me. Could you list me on your page? (I have tried but it comes out incorrectly) And may I call on you if I have technical questions? I earned my doctorate before the advent of computer language. And I thank you very much. รัก-ไทย (talk) 16:04, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

You are very welcome! I've listed you on my user page, so feel free to ask me any questions as frequently as you'd like. I'm always glad to help out. Cheers, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 16:18, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Naturoid

You relisted an AfD for further discussion. It's getting a little out of hand, may I ask you to review it and close if you feel sufficient interest has been raised? Thanks. (and yes I got sucked into it as well..) Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Naturoid#Naturoid Guyonthesubway (talk) 17:58, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello! Is there any particular reason to close the discussion early? Normally discussions last an extra week after they've been relisted. Hopefully by that time the 'out-of-handedness' will be more clearly resolved. Cheers, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:05, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Kylestafford/Robert Lawton

Did you combine my name with Robert A Lawton's? If so...why? I am NOT Robert Lawton....I WAS trying to restore Robert A Lawton's page... thanks Kylestafford (talk) 01:56, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

The page is currently located in your userspace at User:Kylestafford/Robert A. Lawton so that you can make the appropriate changes (that being better expressing the importance or significance of the subject) there before moving it back to the article space. Let me know if you have any questions, cheers! Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 05:20, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Happy day

• Happy day of San Valentin. -----by Wexeb
  Happy day of San Valentin. -----by Wexeb

Thanks Wexeb! And a happy Valentine's day to you too! Cheers! Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 16:11, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

why did you delete miami beach community kollel?

129.171.237.152 (talk) 17:23, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi! The article was deleted due to consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miami Beach Community Kollel. Let me know if you have any questions about this, cheers! Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 18:34, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Concordia University

removed hatnote - Why? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 00:58, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

(P.S. Thanks for doing the move - I hadn't got around to making the request yet. Pdfpdf (talk) 01:00, 16 February 2010 (UTC))

Your welcome! The actual reason I removed it was because I thought the hatnote read "Concordia University redirects here" (not Concordia College). But now that I look at it, it still seems to be slightly repetitive because the next line reads "Concordia is the name of several universities, colleges and seminaries". Feel free to change it back though, whatever you think best. Cheers, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:42, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

You make a good point. So good, in fact, that I'm convinced.

(Particularly given that I was tossing up how many and which of the other redirects should appear in the hatnote ... )

(And, of course, doing nothing is always the easiest short term option ;-)

Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:56, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

By-the-way:

• Concordia University (disambiguation) is a redirect to Concordia University, but
• Talk:Concordia University (disambiguation) is a page, not a redirect, and
• Talk:Concordia University is a redirect to Talk:Concordia University (Montreal).

I would have thought that:

• Talk:Concordia University (disambiguation) should be a redirect to a Talk:Concordia University, and that
• Talk:Concordia University should be a page, not a redirect, that has the contents and history of the current Talk:Concordia University (disambiguation).

Your thoughts? Pdfpdf (talk) 10:29, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Second by-the-way: FYI: I see that a "move request" discussion has commenced on Talk:Concordia University (Montreal) Pdfpdf (talk) 10:29, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Right, we should probably wait on the discussion at Talk:Concordia University (Montreal)#Move? before fixing any of those queries above. I'll keep an eye on it, and thanks for letting me know. Cheers, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 15:07, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Bag

You moved Bag (disambiguation) to Bag but Talk:Bag has a redirect to Talk:Bag (temp) which doesn't exist. Where is the "preserved" content? -Eekerz (talk) 05:30, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Eekerz! Unfortunately I don't think there is preserved content for Talk:Bag (the 'preserved content' in the edit summary refers to the history at now at Bag (disambiguation)). Is it possible you were looking for Talk:Bag (disambiguation)? Sorry for being so confusing, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:21, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Symbolism

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you recently tried to give Symbolism (disambiguation) a different title by copying its content and pasting it into Symbolism. This is known as a "cut and paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is needed for attribution and various other purposes. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you. R'n'B (call me Russ) 16:40, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

No matter how much experience you have, you just never know when you'll be warned (issue clarified and resolved at User talk:R'n'B#Oh symbolism). Cheers! :) -Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 23:10, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Your eyes please....

In regards AFD1 and AFD2 about articles about a Fred Figglehorn movie, I pretty much ignored both articles at the time, as they were lacking in content, lacking in sources, and were a tad premature. What I DID do was rewrite an article from scratch to deal with the same subject. I then placed in the WP:Incubator to bide its time and be improved. Now that the film is in post-production and has gotten more press (as shown in this new version), and out of respect for your proper close, I would like you to review my version at Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Fred: The Movie and give me your opinion. Thank you, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:26, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

To be honest ... your version looks excellent ... well done! Don't worry about my prior close, it was merely an attempt at determining a consensus. Clearly the article is up to snuff, and I suspect it would have little problems going through another AfD. Just say the word and I'll move the page for you if you'd like. Great job my friend, cheers! Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 23:47, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

it would be terrific for it to leave incubation, and more specially with your blessing. So sure... go for it, and thanks. Best regards, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:55, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done - great work, as usual! Always a pleasure to have you drop by, and thanks so much for your contributions. Do take excellent care, cheers! Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 06:25, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

AfD of Libertarian Movement (Italy)

Hi... Just FYI, one of the keeps was the SPA who created the article and is also affiliated with the organization, and another was the same editor socking from an IP. IMO, the AfD should have been relisted. Cheers. --Rrburke^ekrubrR 00:59, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Rrburke! I understand what you're saying, but two other keep !voters (that being User:Off2riorob and User:Defender of torch) seem to be in good standing. Coupled with the lack of deletion support after a full listing period, I thought closing the discussion as 'keep' would be the most reasonable. Is there another point that I might be missing? Thanks for taking the time to bring this up, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 05:06, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Arbitrarily0 -- thanks for replying. I guess my concern is part of a larger beef with the drift toward regarding deletion discussions principally as straw polls or head counts -- I was surprised and a little dismayed as I read the deletion discussion for the version of the article on Italian Wikipedia that over there they appear to decide deletion outcomes exactly this way, by an up or down vote. I hope we can avoid that here on EN, but I fear we may be moving in that direction, all claims to the contrary nowithstanding.

I understand that polling is integral to the AfD process, but deletion discussions have to be more than just vote tallies. I prefer EN's test of rough consensus because it permits the closing admin more discretion in order to assure that votes don't trump policy, and it obliges admins to evaluate arguments rather than just count heads. In this instance, for example, if you have a look at the keep "votes," you'll note that Off2riorob's contribution amounted to "I like COI editors" and WP:ITEXISTS, while Defender of torch's reasoning amounted to WP:ILIKEIT plus "you nominated this because you're a communist" or some other asinine nonsense. No syllogists they, neither response was particularly perspicacious, and neither addressed (or even attempted to address) the central problem, which is that there is still no evidence that the organization that is the subject of the article has received sufficient coverage in reliable, independent sources to merit a standalone article.

The article creator attempted to address the problem (or to appear to address it to save the article from deletion) by adding sources to the article, but if you look at them in any detail you'll see that they suffer from the same defects as the other ones: they don't actually treat the subject of the article in any detail, so they don't add up to WP:SIGCOV. The coverage amounts mostly to passing mentions of the organization occurring in the context of articles on other subjects -- for example, an interview with a person, affiliated with the group but known principally for something else, in which his belonging to the group is mentioned in passing. I couldn't find one in which the Movimento Libertario was actually the subject of an article. In fact, some of the founders of the organization have a better claim to independent notability; the organization itself -- eh, not so much.

It's fairly clear to me that the article is a pretext for posting the group's manifesto on a high-profile website -- in bad English and excruciating detail. Because there is no significant coverage in secondary sources, there is nothing to make an article out of -- except primary sources worked over by OR and SYNTH, which is what the article amounts to in its present form. And there's the usual double-whammy: the lack of sources not only argues against the subject's notability, it prevents any reasonable prospect of improving the article and converting it into an encyclopedia article rather than a manifesto. It should probably been speedied G11 before it was allowed to grow legs. Since that didn't happen, I nominated it for deletion -- something I don't do frivolously or without having done my homework.

I agree there was no support for deletion in the discussion, but IMO the keep votes were discountable per WP:ROUGH CONSENSUS:

• One was from the creator of the article, an editor affiliated with the organization who, per WP:COI, ought to have been steering clear of the AfD debate anyway, discountable as a "new user id whose only edits are to the article in question and the voting on that article" (WP:ROUGH CONSENSUS)
• Another was from this same editor socking from an IP
• Off2riorob's position was contradicted by an established guideline -- WP:COI -- and offered no suggestion as to why the guidleine ought to be set aside in this case nor any evidence to support his contention that the subject was notable
• Defender of torch's position was merely an unfounded accusation of bad faith against the nominator that verged on a personal attack -- and, like Off2riorob's, offered no evidence to support his contention that the subject was notable

As the only substantive contribution to the deletion discussion was Atama's comment, it seems to me a better course of action would have been to relist the AfD to see if a genuine rough consensus might emerge. Cheers. --Rrburke^ekrubrR 13:19, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Alright Rrburke, I took another look at the discussion. User:Off2riorob stated "I got what looked to me in italian quite a lot of coverage from independant sources, not from the movement itself, I have added for that purpose a search template in the italian wording to the top of the article. I have not at this time yet translated any of them" and User:Defender of torch stated "Significant movement with enough coverage in reliable sources to establish notability." Have you tried asking either of these editors for specific evidence? Off2riorob seemed especially willing. Were you at some point considering taking this to deletion review? Looking forward to your reply, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 15:24, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Arbitrarily0. Thanks for the second look. I'm not inclined to go to deletion review: there was clearly no consensus to delete and probably none likely to emerge. Naturally I did see those comments by Off2riorob and Defender of torch, but they were unaccompanied by any evidence to support the assertions: having sifted through every blessed one of the sources cited in the article, I have to confess it rankles a bit when other editors who haven't done so respond blithely with something along the lines of, "Well, I saw a bunch of Google hits, so it looks notable to me." Those sources they believe establish notability are no doubt the same ones I encountered doing the due diligence prior to nominating the article for deletion. The difference is I actually looked at their contents. This is a chronic problem in AfD discussions.

I think the best course of action is to go through the references in detail once again (argh!), remove all the OR and SYNTH from the article, delete all material and references that have nothing to do with the organization as such, and see what's left. I anticipate considerable weeping and gnashing of teeth. If somebody can improve it by finding significant coverage in secondary sources to establish notability, the problem is solved. If that doesn't happen after a decent interval has elapsed, I'll consider nominating it again.

Thanks again for having another look! --Rrburke^ekrubrR 21:15, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree completely. Thanks for your work on it, and consider holding some of those keep !voters accountable for helping to source the article ;) Let me know if there's anything else I can do. Cheers, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 15:34, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Permission to edit Linkin Park's page

I want to edit that page because Linkin Park exceeds the album sales from 50 millions and the actual sales are about more than 57 millions and also i want to edit the "Current Members" article in this page because the "drumer" Rob Bourdon and "bassit" David Pheonix Farrell's biography is not added kindly give me the permission. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anamekon (talk • contribs) 16:47, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done - just remember to cite references. Cheers, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 17:01, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Deletion review for Hurricane Katrina fringe theories

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Hurricane Katrina fringe theories. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Sceptre ^(talk) 19:11, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

My experience is that closing admins tend to not really change their minds. Thus, these days, I skip the step. So, yeah: I don't think the strength of the arguments was towards keeping. Sceptre ^(talk) 20:44, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

While it is true that some admins may seem to respond better than others, WP:DRV suggests contacting them prior for just that reason. In this particular situation, judging by your concerns, I would have definitely considered retracting the close and relisting the discussion. However, since the DRV has already been listed and discussed in, I suppose it can't hurt to let it go through. Just some food for thought, but certainly no harm done. Cheers, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:13, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I really should've talked to you first, seeing as how the DRV listing is missing the point... Sceptre ^(talk) 14:54, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like the community seems all for keeping the article, so I'm not sure a relist would have done much either. But whatever, no big deal :) Cheers, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 15:42, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tony Sarre

I'm not going to drag it to deletion review just to get "no consensus", but how do two arguments for deletion and two for keep = keep? It'd be helpful if you could give a rationale when closing AfDs, so we can understand your reasoning. Fences&Windows 23:56, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Ummmm, they don't ... wow, I'm sorry, wrong button or something? I'm not sure a trout could even cure me at this point ... Thanks for letting me know, but next time just shoot me :) -Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:04, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll have you shot at dawn by Jimbo and ArbCom! If admins were shot for making mistakes, there'd not be many of us left Fences&Windows 00:33, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

HELLO......

How to save my article proposed for deletion?What to do?Please ANSWERS !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!{{{{{ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daznam (talk • contribs) 11:13, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

The article you created is currently undergoing discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Drago Boskovic, where you are welcome to voice your concerns. Good luck, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 11:47, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Rollback rights to Wexeb

He/her just deleted my latest edit ( a work in progress) on MY talk page.

I consider it vandalism.

How ironic.

Gatorinvancouver (talk) 23:16, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Gator! It looks like it was just a mistake (especially since he was using Huggle) - just leave him a friendly note on his talk page. Cheers, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 23:20, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't know how friendly he/she considered my request to please stop. But I sure do not like somebody deleting parts of MY user page when Wikipedia guidelines urge me NOT TO DELETE parts of my user page but archive them instead.

In any case, after this edit (I think) I shall go back to improving Wikipedia by correcting small mistakes.

Or maybe I just picked the wrong topic.....

Final discussion for Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:

1. Proposal to Close This RfC
2. Alternate proposal to close this RFC: we don't need a whole new layer of bureaucracy

Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip 02:08, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the update, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:18, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

ACC open

You've got an open ticket on the account creation tool. Josh Parris 11:25, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done - thanks Josh! Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:16, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Chirpy86/famous parakeets

Just wondering about the userfication of the above, as it seemed a pretty blatant hoax, so I am unsure how it could be improved once userfied? I'm not that up to speed with userfication, so don't know if it's pretty much 'anything goes' (excluding personal attacks etc). Quantpole (talk) 11:36, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not really sure either, especially considering Wikipedia:Userfication is an essay. But Wikipedia:Userfication doesn't seem to have a problem with it, so I suppose it's okay as long as it stays in the userspace. Maybe the folks at miscellany for deletion have a better idea, if you'd like to try it there. I don't know :) Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:24, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Problem you may be able to help with.

User:Wexeb has apparently recently been granted rollback. They have twice rolled back edits to Gary Busey without looking at the edit summaries and then accusing me of vandalism and threatening to block me (I reverted an earlier edit which caused the page not to make sense). I am not a brand new editor, I simply cannot log in at work. Wexeb also immediately erased my question about their rolling back, apparently without reading it (by the way, their talk page says they are offline and gives a message to everyone putting in a new section they are vandalising - yet things are reverted anyway. Are they using a 'bot?). I do not want to see Wexeb punished, but perhaps counseled on the proper way to rollback and to deal with other editors. I don't like being treated like this, when I do not feel I was wrong. Thank you. Triste Tierra (cannot log in at work) 24.176.191.234 (talk) 21:16, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

It looks like this has been taken care of and is under discussion (see User talk:Wexeb). Thanks for letting me know though, cheers! Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:13, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

AfD close

Could you elaborate a bit on your no consensus close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lionel Blackman? Is your feeling that there is no consensus as to whether Blackman is notable enough outside of being a political candidate and therefore we keep, or that there is no consensus that candidate bios should be redirected or deleted if they are not in general notable? I ask because, as I noted on the AfD, a discussion was recently held where it was determined that we would amend WP:POLITICIAN to deal with cases just like these, and the result of that was that candidate articles where the person is generally not notable should get redirected. I think that guideline trumps some of the keep arguments, particularly since one of those supporting the keeping of the article was the only person who did not support the change to WP:POLITICIAN, and in a way is ignoring previous consensus when arguing "I still consider that PPCs for major parties should be kept until the election is over." We do need standards for these kind of articles, and I think this AfD close goes against the standard that was recently agreed to and therefore unfortunately muddies the waters, particularly since no rationale was provided. If you think the "no consensus" relates to whether or not Blackman passes the general notability guideline then you should say so, but really only one editor made that argument and I don't think that was sufficient to counterbalance the four editors who wanted to delete or redirect and the one keep !voter who suggested that Blackman likely was not notable in the absence of his candidacy. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:07, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Greetings! I suppose it's all about perspective Bigtime; two of the !voters supported keeping, two supported deletion, and one supported redirecting. While the keep arguments may not have been super-high quality, they were still argued to the end in the discussion, and can't completely be discounted. Since neither most of the participants supported deletion, neither most of the participants supported keeping, I would have a hard time closing it is either. As far as redirecting goes, I would highly encourage a discussion to be opened for that (on the article's talk page). Does this help clear things up? Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 14:49, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid it doesn't actually. For one thing there were three editors who supported deletion, since the nominator also counts as well. My !vote for a redirect was obviously much more akin to a !delete vote, and when considered as a whole it means 2/3 of those who commented did not support retaining the material as a standalone article (that's exactly the way a closing admin needs to think about AfDs like this, rather than suggesting the vote for redirect and the votes for deletion were in total opposition to each other, that's hardly the case). So the numbers are somewhat significant, but obviously AfDs are not about numbers solely or even primarily. Unfortunately you did not respond to the central part of my comment/question above about WP:POLITICIAN and the recent consensus as to how we handle these exact sort of articles, of which we can expect many since this is a major election year in both the U.S. and the UK. My main concern was that your close did not even acknowledge that current guidelines seem to be firmly on the side of those advocating that the article not exist, and that those voting to keep did not engage with this guideline (indeed one willfully ignored it and basically said "I don't like that guideline," which they also said when discussing the proposed change on the guideline talk page weeks ago when they were the only person who objected to it—this is hardly insignificant, obviously). I think your response above is far too vague and suggests you might have been looking at numbers (though you did not describe these accurately) more than strength of argument. It's also worth pointing out that simply because something is "argued to the end in the discussion" does not automatically make it valid, and indeed it's obviously your job as a closing admin to separate the wheat from the chaff and to set aside (or give less weight to) arguments which have little or no grounding in the standards of the encyclopedia. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:28, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Good, good! They way I saw it, the question in the discussion was whether or not the subject fell under the jurisdiction of WP:POLITICIAN. Assuming I was correct about this (trout me right now if I'm not), if he does fall under WP:POLITICIAN then the article should be redirected (as you stated in the discussion, as per WP:POLITICIAN). If not, however, then he must somehow meet WP:GNG to be kept. With this in mind, let's 're-look' at the discussion:

• User:Cooltrainer Hugh - delete as nominator
• User:Opbeith - keep as it passes WP:GNG
• You - redirect per WP:POLITICIAN
• User:Valenciano - delete as it 'fails' WP:POLITICIAN
• User:Chris Neville-Smith - delete as finds only one reliable source (so does not meet WP:GNG)
• User:Peterkingiron - keep at least until election is over, plus "being the first solicitor to address the House of Lords provide[s] slight notability"

Since I feel like WP:POLITICIAN seems to prevent deletion in this case, and that the subject somewhat arguably meets WP:GNG, I just had a hard time closing it with a consensus (especially since a no consensus close would more welcome a redirect discussion). Do you feel me? :) If not, just say so again, and trout liberally. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 23:36, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

First of all thanks for being so responsive and open to a critique of your close, not all admins would react in the same way and I appreciate it.

The preceding is a much better explanation of your thinking but I still disagree with your logic pretty strongly. Whether or not the subject "arguably" meets the GNG is not the question—of course he "arguably" does. The question is whether there is no consensus that he does not, which is what you are really claiming given your close and your comments above. As I said only one editor actually argued that he passed the GNG, four editors argued (implicitly or explicitly) that he did not, and one other editor "suspected" that there might be "slight notability" but also said "being a councillor is NN," so I do not interpret that to mean they were at all arguing that Blackman passed the GNG. Indeed it's quite obvious that the core of their vote was "I still consider that PPCs for major parties should be kept until the election is over," and the fact is that should be disregarded because that is not what our guideline currently says, and indeed the editor commenting was the only one to object to that guideline and seems to be importing that general objection into an AfD.

So what we're left with to my mind is an assertion on your part that one editor arguing for "keep" based on the GNG is enough to result in a "no consensus" even with four editors flatly disagreeing and another at least in part disagreeing while overall not providing a valid keep rationale. It's also worth pointing out that with this comment (at the end of an exchange) the one editor arguing for passing the GNG seemed to implicitly suggest that policy was not on their side, but said "I can't say I'm convinced when the outcome is the loss of information that's useful and made accessible by Wikipedia" (see to WP:USEFUL and WP:VALINFO on why this is irrelevant) and "If an organisation is notable, it's not unreasonable to assume the notability of someone deemed suitable or with the authority to become the head of it, however often the leader may change, in the absence of a quota for the absolute number of articles or volume of content" which very much goes against our guidelines. Given all that I don't think you've provided a tenable reading of consensus with respect to whether or not the subject pases the GNG—there was only one argument in favor of that and it was quite weak.

Given that the consensus is that Blackman does not pass the GNG (at least in my view), the best course is to simply apply WP:POLITICIAN to the situation as several commenters suggested. You point out that WP:POLITICIAN "seems to prevent deletion in this case," but are ignoring the fact that it also quite pointedly prevents keeping, does it not? The preference is clearly for a redirect, which in reality is much more akin to a deletion that a keep. These kind of AfDs are quite common, i.e. where the overriding sentiment is to not have the article and most !votes are actually to delete, but then one or two people will point out "actually we could just redirect to ______ as a plausible search term." Often the original delete !voters don't come back to address that option, but it's fully within an admin's remit when closing (and indeed many times they should do so) to say "consensus is to not have this article, suggestion to redirect is reasonable and it's unlikely to be controversial among delete voters who are the majority, thus redirecting to ______." Basically implementing a bit of common sense rather than thinking of redirect and delete comments as wildly different—9 out of 10 times they are basically the same.

I'm considering taking this to DRV (which I don't believe I've ever done and don't particularly feel like doing) not just because I think you misread consensus in one particular case, but because I think this sets a bad precedent. As a result of AfDs like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tammy Jennings and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Graham Jones (politician) (obviously I closed the latter) an effort was made to come up with a standard for how to handle political candidate articles. That was accomplished with little controversy, and indeed if applied AfDs should not really be necessary (the article is simply redirected after it is created if the candidate is not already notable, and we don't need a long debate about every single case). Since I think there was clearly a consensus that WP:GNG was not met in this case the article should have been redirected, and as that has not happened it sets a bit of a precedent whereby AfDs of candidate articles that get a few keep !votes could be closed as "no consensus," which is exactly what we were trying to avoid. As I said we're going to be dealing with a lot of these in 2010, and the whole point of creating a standard was to avoid situations where one candidate article was kept and another deleted, rather the goal was for the same approach to be taken with all.

Sorry for the length of this, I have no idea where all these words came from! --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:41, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Fist of all, you're welcome! Since I find myself closing quite a few AfD's, it's important for me to learn how to better do my job (by talking about things such as this). Second of all, I'll try to respond to the rest of your comment as soon as I get a chance - but don't worry, I'll get around to it. :-) Thanks for your patience and sorry for the delay. Best regards, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 20:33, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

No problem, I'll wait for a reply, though it's possible I might open a DRV at some point if you don't have a chance to respond for awhile. Regardless of this discussion I think a DRV may be needed, at least to my mind. Obviously I'll let you know if I decide to open one. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:12, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah, whoops, it didn't take that long after all :) Anyways, here's your options:

1. Boldly redirect the article and discuss the redirect on the talk page
2. Allow me to amend the AfD's closure to redirect (because in hindsight, some of the delete !votes should have probably at least been considered as redirect !votes, considering the stipulation at WP:POLITICIAN)
3. Take the discussion to deletion review

The advantage to deletion review is that you might get more closure on the issue (although it's possible my close would be endorsed), if that's what you're looking for. Or maybe you'd rather just have me revisit my close, it's completely up to you. No offense taken, of course, if you use deletion review ... you might imagine I've been there before ;D Let me know, cheers! Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:42, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Template:Editnotices/Group/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

Good idea in creating this editnotice; I don't know why we didn't think of it earlier. Nyttend (talk) 02:20, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Nyttend!!! Have a great day, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 20:56, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Request Article Review

{{helpme}} Hi Arbitrarily0 - Per the comment on notability, I've edited the MyBuilder article on my specials page (26 Feb) to include multiple references. Can I please have it reviewed now that I've added references? Many thanks for your input. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RKruh (talk • contribs)

Hi RKruh! The article may very well be ready, but consider asking NawlinWiki (talk · contribs), the user who deleted the article, first. Cheers, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 20:52, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

ansver....

I deleted my article From Wikipedia. still be found on google.how be deleted from Google