** ''So in other words even though the person who first posted the article under a registered account said the article should stay, you guys just wanted it removed and acted with and arbitrary manner so that is all that is what it takes..a group of people gte together and decide to remove an interesting article and wham..gone regardless of merit of argument. Just wrong to me. I disagree about the single purpose accounts etc. The actions on this go against the purpose of wikipedia ''[[Special:Contributions/68.50.111.217|68.50.111.217]] ([[User talk:68.50.111.217|talk]]) 03:37, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
** ''So in other words even though the person who first posted the article under a registered account said the article should stay, you guys just wanted it removed and acted with and arbitrary manner so that is all that is what it takes..a group of people gte together and decide to remove an interesting article and wham..gone regardless of merit of argument. Just wrong to me. I disagree about the single purpose accounts etc. The actions on this go against the purpose of wikipedia ''[[Special:Contributions/68.50.111.217|68.50.111.217]] ([[User talk:68.50.111.217|talk]]) 03:37, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
***"So in other words.." is usually a prequel to recast what someone said into a form that doesn't reflect their meaning so you can beat them over the head about something they didn't say. And so it is again. [[User:Spartaz|Spartaz]] <sup>''[[User talk:Spartaz|Humbug!]]''</sup> 13:16, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
***"So in other words.." is usually a prequel to recast what someone said into a form that doesn't reflect their meaning so you can beat them over the head about something they didn't say. And so it is again. [[User:Spartaz|Spartaz]] <sup>''[[User talk:Spartaz|Humbug!]]''</sup> 13:16, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
*'''Ok, you must truly be British because you like to argue. lol So who do we appeal to now? I have looked at the history and the arguments and I still believe there was no consensus under wiki guidelines to remove the article. [[Special:Contributions/68.50.111.217|68.50.111.217]] ([[User talk:68.50.111.217|talk]]) 19:15, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm a long term user (first edit 2006) and have been an admin on or off since 2017. That makes me a bit stuck in my ways but I have the benefit of experience and working through many of the changes that have left us where we are. I am getting grumpy. Sorry but all the drama and grief has washed away a lot of my younger idealism...
A BLP is a serious matter and needs to be properly sourced.
I mostly work on deletion discussions. I am willing to userfy deleted articles for improvement as long as there is a reasonable likelihood that they can be saved. If you are challenging a deletion, do you have three good sources? Also, don’t waste your time asking me to review a close or you are going to DRV because I’m not going to review a close with a sword hanging over my head. Just raise the DRV or ask someone else.
Again, no new header. Thank you for finally putting an end to this but I still think it's not exactly right to impinge the retention of this article based on the retention of the other. However, I will be coordinating a smerge project (but it will end up being to new central lists of all characters per season rather than all heroes and all villains on a single page). Would this still be in line with your close rationale?—Ryulong (琉竜) 14:09, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But there aren't two articles on the same thing. I mentioned this in one of the AFDs or DRVs or whatever. One's a list of every antagonists' names from 1993 to 2012. The other is a list of just 1993 to 1995 which is like a standard character list thing. The latter is a subset of the former (like "List of Star Trek characters" and "List of Star Trek: The Next Generation characters").—Ryulong (琉竜) 04:22, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I think your closure of the discussion about Villains in Mighty Morphin Power Rangers at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2013 January 15 was incorrect. You wrote: "With such a close headcount, I'm left with a little more discretion than usual in assessing the policy based arguments." I disagree. That applies to closing XfDs, not to DRVs. The instructions at WP:DRV provide: "If the administrator finds that there is no consensus in the deletion review, then in most cases this has the same effect as endorsing the decision being appealed. However, in some cases, it may be more appropriate to treat a finding of "no consensus" as equivalent to a "relist"". Consequently, finding no consensus in the DRV, you should not have acted on your own view about what the most appropriate outcome was, but should simply have found that there is no consensus to overturn the closer's judgment. Please consider changing your closure accordingly. Sandstein 08:40, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
DRV tends to be much more of a head count than an AFD and usually the closing admin at DRV needs a damn good reason to ignore the numbers, where the numbers are closer the admin can look more closely at the policy arguments and that is precisely what I did. The numbers were with overturn anyway so I think the close is perfectly permissible given that I came to that conclusion after looking at the arguments and the discussions under debate. I think I probably take a less rules based approach to closing than you do so I can understand that you may find differently but that's why we allow admins some discretion to account for different approaches to the same thing. SpartazHumbug!09:29, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you delete the John B. Kimble article John B. KImble article was not properly deleted. I had submitted arguments of notability and a number of others had too. The article had been posted for many years. To give more weight to editors that work a lot on wikipedia seems dishonest at the least. So who do we appeal to now? 68.50.111.217 (talk) 20:05, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:CONSENSUS and WP:POLITICIAN. Policy based votes always carry more weight and its usual to give new users or single purpose accounts less weight in a close - it prevents non-wikipedians coming in and stacking votes by sheer numbers. Put it this way, if you are someone who devotes your own time to the project, bothers to learn the policies, adds content, don't you think its only right to give those users more say than people who are only interesting in wikipedia for promoting their own area of interest or publishing their pet article. If you want your votes to count more, register an account, learn the ropes and add content across a wide spectrum of interest. There is no further appeal. DRV is it. If you have new information you can register a new DRV at any time but its a waste of your time if you just repeat non-policy based arguments and I might close it early if there is absolutely no merit to the filing. SpartazHumbug!01:51, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So in other words even though the person who first posted the article under a registered account said the article should stay, you guys just wanted it removed and acted with and arbitrary manner so that is all that is what it takes..a group of people gte together and decide to remove an interesting article and wham..gone regardless of merit of argument. Just wrong to me. I disagree about the single purpose accounts etc. The actions on this go against the purpose of wikipedia 68.50.111.217 (talk) 03:37, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"So in other words.." is usually a prequel to recast what someone said into a form that doesn't reflect their meaning so you can beat them over the head about something they didn't say. And so it is again. SpartazHumbug!13:16, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, you must truly be British because you like to argue. lol So who do we appeal to now? I have looked at the history and the arguments and I still believe there was no consensus under wiki guidelines to remove the article. 68.50.111.217 (talk) 19:15, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Are we not expecting the image to come back to DRV? Lets give it a day or so and then I'm going to put up a proposal at DRV/FFD about how to handle them. SpartazHumbug!02:42, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
teri maan ki choot behen chod good articles ko delete karta haey Bharwey Madar Chod Gaaandoooooooo Dalley behen ki choot maarnay waley Harami dalley pilley
teri maan ki choot behen chod good articles ko delete karta haey Bharwey Madar Chod Gaaandoooooooo Dalley behen ki choot maarnay waley Harami dalley pilley — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.103.228.201 (talk) 02:12, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry but I don't understand a word of that. I'm happy to discuss whatever seems to be bothering you but I'm afraid I can only follow messages in English, Russian and limited Danish. SpartazHumbug!02:42, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's new text so G4 doesn't apply but the sourcing is still substandard. I suggest you list this at AFD again and let me know if it gets deleted so I can lock the page against recreation. SpartazHumbug!01:55, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
UTRS Account Request
I confirm that I have requested an account on the UTRS tool. SpartazHumbug!
A deleting administrator clearly did not check for the page history, and should have reverted back to the above version. Since he would not immediately respond to the matter and is inactive, could you go back and save it rather than fixing a redirect? Thank you! --24.6.164.7 (talk) 07:53, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Its all there under the redirect. If you are struggling to find it. Open the page and the redirect kicks in. Got to the very top of target page and the location of the redirect is shown in small blue letters under the page title. Click on that and you will be back at the redirect. Across the top of that page will be a tab marked view history. If you click on that you can see all the previous page versions and can navigate to the revision you want to see the content. SpartazHumbug!08:34, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I did. The link in question above is an old version of that talk page I want to revert to as the current version. Redirect on article's talk page should not redirect, and thus is unnecessary.[1] What I am talking about this is Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2013 January 24. While I requested for history undeletion there, I was entirely unaware of which nonexistent target the page redirected to. As you restored the page, it was previously dependent on Talk:IPad (3rd Generation) as redirect was suppressed by page move. This is all why I was asking for reason why was CSD G8. Do you have objection to restoring a non-redirect version? --24.6.164.7 (talk) 22:37, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly I couldn't care less. Personally I can't see the point unless you want to discuss the redirect now but if its important to you, there is no harm in undoing the redirect. SpartazHumbug!04:10, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I merged your changes to the updated version of the article that I had in my sandbox: FolderSize. There is a lot of work done in that article so I hope you will agree on editing it instead of completely ignoring it. Please note that license to use the image in the article is granted by MindGems and confirmed by Wikipedia editor. The article is updated with extra references that are newer than the review in PCWorld. Please note that the things for speed and missing stuff from that outdated article are already fixed or implemented in the version 2.9.0.0 of the tool while the article relates to version 1.2.0.0. The revised article that I have uploaded is written in an objective way without leaning towards promotion of any kind. Even though the quotation that you have added from PCWorl about the tool being "cumbersome" is not longer valid I have merged it in the article. If you think something should be revised please feel free to do it. Allancass (talk) 21:39, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand why you removed the text of Jessica Dykstra's article. It was my understanding that the article was restored in order to allow others to read the article, and determine whether or not she is notable.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 17:08, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but the text is available in the history. A temp undelete isn't intended to bring the article back but to make the history available. The state I have left the article is the one that we would expect for something at DRV. SpartazHumbug!18:06, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I hope no one thinks that I was being disruptive by reinserting the text. It was an honest error. --J.S.
I redid the page (in my Sandbox) that was deleted at your request recently. I am hoping you could look at it and see if it is ok this time. I made the article less promotional and found another source to reference the facts that I first got from the website.
Link to article: LIMS
Yes, I have read them, and I still think they are notable enough. Can you please elaborate what is not notable enough to your opinion in this specific case? Thanks Sandra (talk) 08:42, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
References 1 & 2 are not independant and don't count. Reference 3 is a listing with no critical commentary so isn't a userful reliable source and while 4 is a little better it is essentially another listing without the expected depth for a reliable source that we could use to assess notability. SpartazHumbug!10:20, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea how to do that and its not necessary for the CfD. They can manage without it. If its closed as retain then someone will create it. SpartazHumbug!16:03, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Spartaz. You have new messages at 3abos's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
I'm hardly an expect on Arbcom (this case has been my first real exposure to the process), but I think you could still post your comment on one of the talk pages (for either the Evidence page or the Workshop page). --Orlady (talk) 19:38, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You will have to help me here, there is no history or deleted article at HIghland Superstores and I can't see anything connected to them in your deleted contributions history. Can you point me in the direction of the page that was deleted or the deletion discussion so I can revisit this for you? Thanks. SpartazHumbug!04:27, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article that was deleted said its entireity " Highland Superstore was a chain of large stores located in the Chicago area.". I have no objection to creating a new article. The AFD was over 5 years ago and the page was at the wrong title so that's probably why the sources didn't emerge when we looked at it. If you need help creating the page, just ask. SpartazHumbug!17:38, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of military commanders, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Boughey (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi, Just before you gave protection to South Indian film industry page a revert was made from an IP 116.202.122.195 changing the word Kochi to Kerala. Now the statement looks out-of-place, as all the associated newspaper citations mention Kochi! Could you let me know whether I am allowed to correct it through an edit, at this stage? That was the form in which South Indian film industry page existed for last 9 months or so, before these edits and reverts started couple of days back. As discussed in the talk page therein, this has everything to do with reported edit war in Malayalam cinema page. Also would like to bring to your notice that the same has been done by the same IP 116.202.122.195, in Cinema of India page. I edited and changed this back to what existed with citations.
Prathambhu (talk) 17:50, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
