Jump to content

User talk:Spartaz

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mirroryou1 (talk | contribs) at 19:06, 4 January 2010 (→misconceptions2 user). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Uzbekistan 2020

You closed the AFD as a redirect, but the information from Uzbekistan 2020 was not moved to the Lola Karimova-Tillyaeva page. Information about the organization still belongs on her page as a section. Please undelete the Uzbekistan 2020 page for a little while so the information can be copied to Lola Karimova-Tillyaeva. Thanks. Otebig (talk) 21:07, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I restored the history behind the redirect so everything should be there now. If you are going to merge material then we need to keep the history undeleted behind the redirect for attribution purposes Spartaz Humbug! 05:24, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

(I entered this on the review page but was not sure that the editors would see it... so please excuse me if I have done this incorrectly.)

Thank you very much for your review and feedback. I believe, based on reading through the responses, that the current problem with the article on Alfredo Corvino is that the revisions I made are still more like "derivations" of existing phrases... similarity infringement... in other words, while I changed words, the structure of the phrases in my article was still too similar to the original material.

How do I address a situation where I may wish to use a direct quote? Is this possible? For example, if I wanted to include a segment of an actual conversation by an individual... such as a direct quote by Alfredo Corvino... can this be done? Sometimes, things are said or written so precisely... so perfectly... that they can not be rewritten and have the same impact.

Although it may not seem like it to you, I really am trying to learn and to do things in a correct manner. What really frustrated me yesterday was that my article was blocked and I could no longer make any modification or revisions... and all the messages from editors accusing me of vandalizing wikipedia! (They did seem a bit harsh.)

I will also explore the second suggestion... drafting in userspace ... I am not sure what this exactly means but I will certainly investigate. I am quite sure that new/novice contributors like me, are a constant source of annoyance and irritation to editors, like you... and I do apologize for any inconvenience I have caused.

Thank you for your time! Seamanjg (talk) 02:02, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I want to thank you for the additional assistance you provided. I have followed the suggestion and re-written the article on Alfredo Corvino on my user page... (I think)

Seamanjg (talk) 13:37, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please undelete Kiss All the Boys image?

I don't suppose I could prevail upon you to undelete the File:Kiss All the Boys (Yaoi Manga).jpg image from Kiss All the Boys? The admin who speedied it when it was orphaned is having an attack of RL. Thank you. --Malkinann (talk) 03:09, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done Spartaz Humbug! 03:18, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers! --Malkinann (talk) 03:27, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vote stacking

Hello! I don't know if you have seen Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Bravedog#Conclusions, but THREE of the accounts who said to redirect in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Una Healy (Bravedog = GaGaOohLaLa, and also Dalejenkins) were actually the same person (including the nominator) and therefore may have unduly influenced the discussion by giving a false consensus. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 05:18, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You were involved in a discussion regarding the use of copyrighted architectural designs on Wikipedia pages and I'm trying to find community consensus on a gray area. If you can, please let me know at what point you feel these images should be replaced here. Thank you so much! DR04 (talk) 19:23, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Epona (IRC services)

Re Epona (IRC services), WP:WEB doesn't apply to software. There was little point in AfDing the article as I intended to merge it into a parent article. Note that Miami33139 has already jumpped into that AfD. I intend to stay out of that AfD because if I comment, Miami33139 will just create even more drama there. --Tothwolf (talk) 13:46, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Google Watch DRV

Hey there. I saw that you closed Google Watch's DRV early citing the rationale that DRV cannot overturn a merge. While that is the case, I did cite in my closing rationale that "there is a consensus that the article should not remain as a standalone one". Although it is not a direct prohibition against unmerging, it is indicative of the fact that there was a consensus to get rid of the article and keep it that way. I was wondering if perhaps the DRV could take its course, just so that any possible future disagreements could we avoided? Feel free to tell me your thoughts on the matter. Cheers, NW (Talk) 14:13, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • The point is that DRV cannot dictate article content and a merge is a specialised keep so all that DRV would do is affirm that the content be kept. Whether its kept as a standalone article or a merge does not require an admin to resolve as ordinary editors have the tools for the job. There is an interesting essay about this at WP:ND3. So basically, if I reopened the DRV you would find the outcome is endorse keep with no opinion on the merge. Remember that merge at AFD is a recommendation not a binding consensus as consensus can always change and the content has been found encyclopaedic. I think there are grounds to review the scope of DRV and I would personally support that but, as it stands, it can't help you determine if the article should be standalone or merged. Spartaz Humbug! 15:42, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the speedy response; it was very enlightening. I'm not really too familiar with the ins and outs of DRV, so I'll read up on them sometime soon. Maybe one day I'll start a discussion on WT:DRV. It does seem like things are changing though; the Michaele Salahi AfD, which was closed as keep, looks like it is going to be overturned to merge. NW (Talk) 16:14, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

I feel sorry for Barbario though as I can understand his/her frustration with Admins and others who ignore policies. But I believe we make sense when we say that a policy/guideline that is not adhered to is invalid. I dont know if that would ever fly to get officially put into the WP:Policies and guidelines page but if you will back it we can always put it on the talk page and see what happens.Camelbinky (talk) 22:33, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Foswiki redirect

Hi, you closed the DRV for Foswiki as "deletion endorsed", and so far as I am concerned that's fine because given the recency of the branching the two are best discussed in a single article. However, in my opinion a redirect from Foswiki to TWiki is necessary. Since the branching occurred a year ago, the two branches have had roughly the same public attention (Foswiki probably a bit more than TWiki), and either project has good reason to claim being the official successor of pre-branch TWiki.

I was going to create the redirect myself per common sense, WP:REDIRECT and WP:RECREATE#Valid reasons for recreating a deleted page and ask for its protection afterwards. But it's salted. So: Could you please create the redirect? IMO it should go directly to TWiki, not to a subsection. Hans Adler 12:01, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Salahi

Thanks for taking care of that, it was a good call since it rightly pointed out that there was a problem with the AfD close, while suggesting that consensus seemed to be in the direction of a merge, but still leaving it up to editors to work out the specifics. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:50, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

aMSN deletion

Hi, you deleted the aMSN page, and we believe this should not have happened. could you follow the discussion in the talk page of the "AfD" of aMSN, please? Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/AMSN

Thanks. Kakarotoks (talk) 20:08, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for AMSN

An editor has asked for a deletion review of AMSN. 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. Tim Song (talk) 05:09, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FidoNews

Hi, you just closed this AfD as "no consensus". However, just before it had been relisted to garner more debate. In addition, there were two deletion votes (nom and Nsk92), one remark by Psychonaut that FidoNet is notable (but that is FidoNews' parent organization) with the added expectation that this might mean that FidoNews also is notable (but no vote was given), and one vote by Armbrust to merge and redirect to FidoNet. I would greatly appreciate if you could have a second look at this. Thanks! --Crusio (talk) 07:53, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • No consensus because one editor brought forward multiple sources an no-one challenged them. Therefore there is a presumption that the sources were adequate. It happened late in the debate and the only subsequent vote was ambiguous and I couldn't just assume that delete voters would have retained their position in the face of sourcing. Spartaz Humbug! 08:35, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the sources were not challenged because the editor explicitly stated that they were about "FidoNet", not "FidoNews". (I know that that is why I myself did not challenge them, I did see them shortly after having been posted the day the debate was opened on Dec. 9th). Note that the editor who brought up these references refrained from giving a clear vote himself. --Crusio (talk) 08:50, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • ER, I think I must have misread the relisting date because when I closed I thought it had been relisted for aweek already not the same day. Of course the discussion needs to continue some more. I have reversed the closed and left everything where it was. I guess the only good thing is you have a clue about what you should do with the sources presented. Spartaz Humbug! 09:27, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ready 'N Steady

Why did you delete this page? I thought the matter was still being decided. RMc (talk) 19:45, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

unclear AfD close, and incomplete close

Hi- two issues. First, your comment on the close of this AfD is somewhat ambigous (to my OCPD mind, at least). Are you saying the consensus is "no consensus", or that it is "merge" if only a suitable target existed?

Secondly, all of the bundled articles haven't been closed properly. tedder (talk) 07:04, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Fixed the closes and it was no-consensus because there was no clear consensus where to merge it to. Since a merge is an editorial action no consensus is required in a deletion discussion to enact this. Spartaz Humbug! 07:17, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Spartaz. I try to clean up old AFDs occasionally, those came up. tedder (talk) 07:26, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kimberly Freeman

Why was the page deleted? I don't see discussion there on the reason. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.163.168.194 (talk) 20:40, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NetLabs

Please restore this page so I can add more secondary sources establishing notability. Davejagoda (talk) 00:32, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will add references to RFC1147: http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1147.html which mentions NetLabs' agents and to the wiki page on Seagate Software (NetLabs was one of the companies that made up Seagate Software). I also want to link to magazines at the time such as articles like this: http://books.google.com/books?id=1T0EAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA45&lpg=PA45&dq=netlabs+dual+manager&source=bl&ots=xnkWEwUf3E&sig=GO4cW-_Tkr7kH9eJ_zoiDxxDLQQ&hl=en&ei=U1YvS9KNO4OKsQOUuczoDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CBUQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=netlabs%20dual%20manager&f=false. NetLabs is mentioned in this book as well: http://books.google.com/books?id=YKM5MOYLym8C including the role of it's technology which made it into other products (e.g. products sold by Sun, HP, NCR, Siemens, and NTT) - page 47 has a diagram of the various vendors and some of the evolution that occurred. Davejagoda (talk) 11:12, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Which source do you think is the best one? RFC1147? Davejagoda (talk) 16:04, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good close

Good close here I thought, if earlier than I'd have done it. Nice summary of the point of me listing it in the first place! GedUK  18:34, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

qutIM's article deletion

Hello again, first of all sorry for quoting of texts in russian, you can easy translate them by http://translate.google.com/, but they're needed for full information.

At the qutIM's AfD there were a little mistakes, but because discussion is finished I can't write in it, so:

  1. Article at habrahabr.ru was created not as flashmob or for asking people to write anything at AfD's page, but as ask for help. So any strange and useless posts were unexpected and I'm sorry for them. "В связи с тем, что у меня нет никаких контактов с админами каких-либо секторов википедии я и написал эту статью. Я не ставлю целью флешмоб, цель в данном случае — разобраться с ситуацией и решить проблему, о чем я и сообщил в конце статьи."(post)
  2. Anyway article at habrahabr.ru was usefull, users helped to find possible reason of several OpenSource Softwares' deletion (I mean qutIM, Jabbin, Gajim, Coccinella and so on, most of them are world-known, but have no reliable sources). Firstly I was surprized if there is no rule how to count notability of Software and OpenSource software, but it exists.

By this rule qutIM and other OpenSource clients should just proove their's activity and the fact, that they have countable number of developers. qutIM's sources are stored at http://gitorious.org/qutim last months, also at http://gitorious.org/+qutim-developers you can see full list of developers and see their contribution to source base. By the way, as it was said in AfD, qutIM now is in official repository of Gentoo, AltLinux, Russian Fedora. Also it's default messenger in Russian Fedora Remix 12 (I've published already all links in AfD), so it's not "just another OpenSource project", but well-known one. EuroElessar (talk) 19:33, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • If its well known you will be able to provide lots and lots of really good sources won't you. Much better then the ones you already presented that have been rejected by the community. And any more stunts like that last canvassing exercise will end any discussion with me immediately. Spartaz Humbug! 20:30, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please, read rule more carefully:
The requirement for third party reliable sources for software projects done over the Internet is broken. People don't generally write books or even cnn.com articles about free software projects except for the very biggest ones. EuroElessar (talk) 00:08, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then they are not notable enough for an article. Our overriding requirement is that material must be verifiable and that requires solid sourcing. Spartaz Humbug! 04:26, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
tomshardware.com is RS, isn't it? EuroElessar (talk) 07:58, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Page's photo of OpenSource Mag 28 Nigmatullin Ruslan (talk) 09:45, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
These all seem product round ups and are not substantial coverage. No opinion on whether the sources are considered reliable. Spartaz Humbug! 13:07, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OpenSource Mag is a part of proffessional journal "Системный администратор" which has more than 7 year history, so it's reliable source. Tom's Hardware is world known web resource, so the fact that qutIM was in one line with Pidgin/Psi/Kopete prooves it's notability. Nigmatullin Ruslan (talk) 14:10, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The missing aspect is substantial. Passing mentions in product round ups aren't good enough and don't prove notability so whether the source is reliable or not is really academic. You already had several chances to understand this. I'm starting to wonder if this is deliberate? Spartaz Humbug! 14:36, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by "round up"? No one of definitions (by Macmillan English Dictionary) is suitable here. Also describe (with links to rules) why so-called "round ups" aren't good. Nigmatullin Ruslan (talk) 15:00, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

qutIM's article deletion - two questions

  • Dear Spartaz, hello! I was a bit surprised to see that my specific comment was cited in your AfD closure comment. But I do apologize for it, I realize now that my joke was definitely out of place.
  • Anyhow, if you don't mind, could you please clarify something for me please? I do understand that my questions might be very dumb and obvious for everybody here, therefore if you think they do not worth an answer and/or you do not have time to respond, please feel free to ignore them, I would totally understand it.
  • My first question is - do you think that we improved the Wikipedia by deleting the qutIM article? If yes - could you please clarify why do you think it was improved?
  • I have now read Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy and Wikipedia:Ignore all rules articles and they seem to contradict with what I have observed.
  • So my second question is: what is more important for Wikipedia - just following the rules OR trying to make it better (bigger) by keeping the article (and possibly asking the author to enhance/rewrite/improve it to make the Wikipedia even better!)?
  • Regardless of what your answer would be, thank you so much for your continuous work and contribution! Alexei.
  • PS EuroElessar, I really am very sorry to interfere again and please accept my sincere apologies for that not-the-most-useful-comment-I-have-made-in-my-life. I just can not keep silence (although maybe I should!) after being mentioned in such a way (I know I did nothing really bad and I definitely did not intend to kill anybody, but now I feel guilty and confused). Realaaa (talk) 05:01, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • let me pose this question. If wikipedia has a clear inclusion standard that isn't perfect by any means but provides a threshold that most of us can understand and live with, why should we waive it for this article? If it were that important a subject then it would easily pass the notability test and its really not a high threshold to pass. I realise that its important to you, that you feel strongly about it, and there is a narrow sectional interest in it, but in the wider world its not a major subject and, if the world were really that interested, there would be lots of stuff out there about it that would easily prove notability. So my answer is that we are not improving wikipedia unless we are trying to keep the overall content relevant to what's being written about in the real world and maintaining a clear standard that everyone, and I generally mean everyone, is expected to meet to keep stuff on the 'pedia. IAR doesn't mean that a narrow sectional view can overrule a broad consensus of the community but it does mean that we should not necessarily be petty about the edges of rules if there is a good outcome to be gained - but always we must consider the wider consensus of what is expected and that is what is prevailing now. Since the community believes the notability standard is what should be applied to articles. I would personally dispute that ignoring a broad consensus is good for what is, at the end of the day, a collegiate and consensus driven system. Spartaz Humbug! 14:49, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I want to note here, for the FOSS advocates who keep quoting an RFC from earlier this year. That RFC text is simply an essay by one person. The talk page where other users gave their opinion soundly rejected that the essay had merit. It should probably be moved from the current title to a userspace essay, and appropriately tagged as a failed proposal. Miami33139 (talk) 20:51, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TestLink article deleted

An editor has asked for a deletion review of TestLink. 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.

I just find out you had deleted a page about TestLink. My first impression was that you receive money for. But I think that you are not experienced in software testing discipline. Could you check my review of your action there: [1] Havlatm (talk) 08:57, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spartaz, My English is not good - but I'm sure that I didn't wrote that you receive money for as you wrote in deletion review. I have no reliable article for :-P Havlatm (talk) 10:03, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see its closed so its too late but for the record I would have been happy to withdraw the comment as I misunderstood what you meant by "My first impression was that you receive money for". Spartaz Humbug! 15:17, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I checked wikipedia-pages of similar tools like is TestLink. I find out that you should remove nearly all these tools to follow "yours" rules. For example [2] - this is the most famoust test management tool in the world. I have no copy of TestLink page before deletion (not sure how system shows it to me). But I'm sure that TL page was in better shape. Are you going to delete this page? Bad if yes. You can check also list of "popular tools" on pages [3]. No one of them has reliable citations as you required. That is why I cannot believe you. That is why your proud ideas are wrong in my eyes. Havlatm (talk) 00:01, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notification: Proposed 'Motion to Close' at Wikipedia:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC re: a 'Motion to close', which would dissolve Cda as a proposal. The motion includes an !vote. You have previously commented at Wikipedia:WikiProject Administrator/Admin Recall. Best Wishes for the Holidays, Jusdafax 05:44, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison between Roman and Han Empires AFD

Hello, I apologize if you already know this, but the said stubbification and reworking was already in progress during the AFD and was largely completed(see current version of the article, largely free of OR and Synthesis). Also see several delete votes that switched to keep as a result of the article being reworked at the end of the AFD, which brought the number of keep votes up to the same as delete. Teeninvestor (talk) 16:11, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes I did read the AFD. Until both sides in the dispute are happy this is the best way to prevent further dispute and some recent participants in the AFD were still voting delete so this is clearly a work in progress even though it is clearly much better then it was. Hopefully, if you have already done much of the work, it will not be long before all sides in the dispute are happy this can be restored. Spartaz Humbug! 16:14, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is a work in progress, but Wikipedia is not perfect. Considering the keep votes and arguments were roughly the same (and probably exceeded) as the deleters, this AFD should have been closed as No consensus. The current arrangement merely inconveniences the reader and causes him/her to not want to view the article, as well as delegitimizing it. All work in progress should be carried out in the article space; we do not userify every article that is not perfect. I feel it amounts to a de facto delete. You speak of making the deleters happy; but if you checked, the ones who were working constructively to try to remove OR and synthesis had largely changed to keep, while the ones still voting delete were long-time deleters who simply object to the topic (and comparison articles) in general, even if it's an FA. It will be impossible to try to make them "happy" unless the article is deleted. I propose a different solution; the current version is restored, and any changes to be required through talk page consensus.Teeninvestor (talk) 16:30, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note about the requirement to make both sides of the dispute happy

Thanks for your help, first of all. But if you read the AFD, most of the delete voters who were strong deleters have already switched to keep (the article was overhauled massively during the AFD), while the ones that remain were the ones that have been agitating for nearly a year to delete this article. see this link when they argued that not being able to insert Pro roman OR was a reason to delete the article. They're not giving me any advice cause they don't have concerns; they just want the article deleted. As we can all agree this is a notable topic, a de facto deletion would be a terrible outcome for wikipedia. I propose that instead, if a sufficient number of outside editors agree that the article is suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia, that the article be restored.Teeninvestor (talk) 16:34, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I Think you already said your piece. Spartaz Humbug! 19:28, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Comparison between Roman and Han Empires

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Comparison between Roman and Han Empires. 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. Teeninvestor (talk) 18:25, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that was the correct move, personally. It should satisfy all sides without pleasing any of them - a sure sign it's right. . when you get a chance, you might switch the stub template to {{Hist-stub}}, but no hurries. --Ludwigs2 06:43, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Closed AfD for Asset Voting

Clearly your resolution to WP:Articles for deletion/Asset voting (3rd nomination) "seems to be the best way to resolve this", or you would have resolved it another way, but could you elaborate, perhaps in an afterword to your close as you did here? I'm not ungrateful, just puzzled.

I don't think it's right though that the matter ended on the unresolved accusation against user:Αβγδεζηθικλ by user:Fences and windows. If the discussion is preserved and not blanked as Fences suggested, it's only fair that the answer to Fences' charge be preserved as well. Yappy2bhere (talk) 21:25, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, okay then. Yappy2bhere (talk) 21:51, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I didn't mean to be terse but was just going to be when your note reminded me to blank the AFD. I went for the redirect because I thought that a link to material elsewhere would prevent recreation. Spartaz Humbug! 04:22, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay then, I can understand that. Thank you for letting me know. Yappy2bhere (talk) 06:41, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Closure of AFD for Gynoid

Hi Spartaz - I'm a little surprised at your closing comments on WP:Articles for deletion/Gynoid ("no consensus"). It seems an unusual closing statement to me... other than the nominator, only one person !voted "delete", and that editor later admitted that s/he could "see a rationale for having an article on this term". I'd have closed this as a fairly clear keep rather than a no consensus. Grutness...wha? 23:09, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, I thought the arguments about the lack of sourcing for the term were reasonable and I close by looking at the arguments rather then counting heads. There were a couple of keep arguments that were not policy based and one keep but move because the term wasn't sourced so overall I felt there was no consensus. Spartaz Humbug! 04:05, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apology

I am going on my wikibreak, but before I go I would like to apologize for some of my behaviour, which I regret. When I return, I will not edit the article incubator.Teeninvestor (talk) 22:52, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Please undelete DeskAway page

I was quite surprised to see a page I made DeskAway has been deleted. A lot of similar services like it have wikipedia pages eg: List of project management software, moreover I had cited references from leading Indian newspapers, TV coverage on leading business channels and top tech blogs worldwide. Thoroughly disappointed with this deletion. Since there seems no way to get email notifications, I could not be part of the discussion for deletion. Can you please re-publish it? --Smoldee (talk) 07:14, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • If you read the deletion discussion the main objection was the promotional tone of the article. I can't really see any harm in letting you have another go at creating this in more neutral language. Do you want me to move it into your area so you can work on a better draft? Spartaz Humbug! 08:12, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ya please shift it to my area, Thanks! --Smoldee (talk) 17:00, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks very much for the thought. I think I'm too much of a partisan to be selected. And frankly, while I know I'd use the tools well, I don't think it would be unfair of others to not trust me to do so. So I'll pass. Thanks again though! Hobit (talk) 15:48, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

after your earlier close....

An improved and better sourced version of the article about the Fred movie is currently at Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Fred: The Movie. Over the next few weeks it can be expanded, sourced and further improved so that when it is returned to main pages, it will meet the inclusion requirements set by WP:NF. Please feel free to check in. Best, Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:05, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To quote from my close

The sourcing isn't quite there yet but its close. the NYT is one but we need more then one really decent source and arguably this belongs with the main article until the coverage is more substantial, So I'm closing this as a redirect with a specific caveat that this can be undone as and when the sourcing improves without need to refer to me or have any further discussion.

So you don't actually need to come back to me. Just put it back up when you feel the sourcing is good enough. Spartaz Humbug! 04:31, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have read and understand the good faith and intentions of your close. I wanted to thank you and let you know that it was appreciated, as it will deter cries of CSD:G7 when the article returns. Best wishes and happy holidays, Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 06:45, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

G'day Spart

and a belated happy new year too! (heck, have some chrismassy greetings too.. my belly, head, and fridge indicate that it's not really over yet!) - would you mind popping Chinese immigration to Sydney, Australia, which you deleted into my userspace - maybe here? - I'm going to work it up into wonderfulness, and the edits to date will no doubt help - I may have some further questions about the deletion too, so may pop back anon if that's cool with you :-) cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 22:07, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

thanks heaps, Spart :-) - I don't suppose you could also restore the talk page to the appropriate spot too? - from memory there was some review material which I'd like to work from a bit as well.... thanks for such a speedy response too... Privatemusings (talk) 05:10, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
thanks again! - I've started tidying up, reworking and generally improving the article - and have decided to cull it right down to try and get it fit for mainspace :-) - I wonder if you could take a look at it (and maybe review the talk page?) to see if you feel it's ready for the mainspace at this point? - if you've got any time, any peer review type pointers would also be wonderful :-) cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 21:58, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Misconceptions2

Given this editor's block evasion (see [4], doesn't this merit a longer block of both master and sock? Dougweller (talk) 19:09, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks. I didn't want to get into a wheel war. :-) Dougweller (talk) 20:01, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, certainly wouldn't consider it wheelwarring for extendinga block where someone has been naughty post block. :-) Spartaz Humbug! 20:04, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


misconceptions2 user

you mistakenly banned misconceptions2.he has been perma banned for edit warring after ban on caravan raids.

But he did not edit anything as far as i know.This is not his ip ----> 188.221.108.172. it is mine !

He got banned mistakenly. Admin has said that i am not a sock.he did not edit war after ban!

please unban him after sock investigation is over, I feel it is unfair that he should get banned because of me--Mirroryou1 (talk) 16:14, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I can't help feeling that there is a touch of his reaping what he sowed, since the only reason why your ip was linked to his account was his previous action to evade his block by using your connection. I'm not prepared to unblock him right now, but will happily review this once the SPI is completed. Spartaz Humbug! 16:27, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As an admin you have the ability to check ip's, please compare my ip, with misconceptions2. to get this over with. i have also changed my wep key--Mirroryou1 (talk) 15:35, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No I don't actually and I have asked the checkuser to expand on the response to the request to help us resolve this. Spartaz Humbug! 15:56, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi can u also ask the checkuser to verify who's ip address is 188.XX and who's is 84.XX.. do u want me to giv pictures of our 2 ip's. if misconceptions pressed edit, it says his ip is 84.XX, whereas mine is different, i checked on what is my ip.com. i think its crucial that they identify, whos ip, is who's--Mirroryou1 (talk) 16:01, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a picture of my ip and computer.http://img205.imageshack.us/img205/1469/dsc00135k.jpg .i will upload misconceptions soon.--Mirroryou1 (talk) 16:16, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please stop pestering me and leave me to deal with this my own way. Once the CU has commented further I will review but otherwise its annoying having the orange message bar show up every time I refresh my browser. Just stop. OK? Spartaz Humbug! 16:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ok i am sorry. i wont do it anymore.last msg:check the sock investigation page for update.--Mirroryou1 (talk) 16:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

there is am update by jpgordon. Jpdragon has said we use different browsers.This shows we are not same person.misconceptions2 had acces to my wireless,not anymore.i changed wep key at uni campus.--Mirroryou1 (talk) 19:06, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Snegoff

Re Greg Snegoff, you deleted it after closing Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Greg_Snegoff. It's been recreated. I would have deleted it as WP:CSD#G4 but I'm thinking that might result in a DRV...do you have an opinion on this one?  Frank  |  talk  15:09, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't mind the DRV since it will be upheld unless some sources magically appear in which case I'll be the first to recreate it.. Its toast and salted now. Thanks for the heads up. Spartaz Humbug! 15:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No problem!  Frank  |  talk  15:14, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Spartaz&oldid=335852734"