User talk:Arbitrarily0
Greetings!
|
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.
- 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:
- 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)
- 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:
- Boldly redirect the article and discuss the redirect on the talk page
- 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)
- 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)
- Apologies, I forgot to reply here for a bit. Thanks for being so receptive to rethinking this. If you're okay with number two (amending to redirect) I would say that is the best option. But really only if you think it's the right thing to do, I don't want to have badgered you into changing your mind or anything remotely like that. The only advantage to deletion review at this point would be to clue some additional folks into the general situation regarding candidates and WP:POLITICIAN which would be good, but I'm a firm believer in saving community time and resources whenever possible, so if a DRV is not really necessary it's best to avoid putting a couple dozen pairs of eyes on it that could be looking at other issues. I very much appreciate you laying out these options to resolve this. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:26, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
- You're welcome! Well I was about to start changing my close when I noticed this link was cited on the article. What are your thoughts on it? Having seen that the article has undergone some editing since the close, I have a feeling that it might be brought to deletion review either way. Do you get the gist of the quandary I'm talking about? I'm not sure what the best course of action is from here. Looking forward to hearing from you again (although don't rush!), cheers! Arbitrarily0 (talk) 21:01, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
- I do see the quandary, and thanks for pointing that out. Given that source I think we should maybe (after all this!) just let sleeping dogs lie. Personally I think I would still support deletion even with that source, but I think a general discussion (if restarted) among a dozen or so random community members would probably result in a keep or a no consensus given the relatively low bar we have for notability. Arguably he passes the GNG which moots the guideline at WP:POLITICIAN. While I still think the original close should have been different, I'm a million miles away from being process wonky enough to establish that fact via another discussion when a new AfD discussion would likely be different given the changes to the article. So I don't think it's worth a DRV, and I don't think there's much harm leaving things as are. All I'd ask is that, as an AfD regular, you spread the word (if it comes up) about the "redirect political candidates" guideline at WP:POLITICIAN as that is of recent provenance, the issue will probably come up again at AfDs throughout the year, and the guideline can save quite a lot of time if people follow it and just boldly redirect those kind of articles at least until the election. So in the end all those words to end up back where we started! --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:18, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
- I agree. In closing future discussion such as this one, I'll assuredly keep in mind this new-ish intricacy on WP:POLITICIAN. And my apologies for all of that above. If I had made a more accurate close to begin with it all could have been avoided, but I'm happy to say that I'm a better editor because of it ... so thanks for that! Best regards Bigtime, take excellent care! Arbitrarily0 (talk) 12:21, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
- I do see the quandary, and thanks for pointing that out. Given that source I think we should maybe (after all this!) just let sleeping dogs lie. Personally I think I would still support deletion even with that source, but I think a general discussion (if restarted) among a dozen or so random community members would probably result in a keep or a no consensus given the relatively low bar we have for notability. Arguably he passes the GNG which moots the guideline at WP:POLITICIAN. While I still think the original close should have been different, I'm a million miles away from being process wonky enough to establish that fact via another discussion when a new AfD discussion would likely be different given the changes to the article. So I don't think it's worth a DRV, and I don't think there's much harm leaving things as are. All I'd ask is that, as an AfD regular, you spread the word (if it comes up) about the "redirect political candidates" guideline at WP:POLITICIAN as that is of recent provenance, the issue will probably come up again at AfDs throughout the year, and the guideline can save quite a lot of time if people follow it and just boldly redirect those kind of articles at least until the election. So in the end all those words to end up back where we started! --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:18, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
- You're welcome! Well I was about to start changing my close when I noticed this link was cited on the article. What are your thoughts on it? Having seen that the article has undergone some editing since the close, I have a feeling that it might be brought to deletion review either way. Do you get the gist of the quandary I'm talking about? I'm not sure what the best course of action is from here. Looking forward to hearing from you again (although don't rush!), cheers! Arbitrarily0 (talk) 21:01, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
- Apologies, I forgot to reply here for a bit. Thanks for being so receptive to rethinking this. If you're okay with number two (amending to redirect) I would say that is the best option. But really only if you think it's the right thing to do, I don't want to have badgered you into changing your mind or anything remotely like that. The only advantage to deletion review at this point would be to clue some additional folks into the general situation regarding candidates and WP:POLITICIAN which would be good, but I'm a firm believer in saving community time and resources whenever possible, so if a DRV is not really necessary it's best to avoid putting a couple dozen pairs of eyes on it that could be looking at other issues. I very much appreciate you laying out these options to resolve this. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:26, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
- Ah, whoops, it didn't take that long after all :) Anyways, here's your options:
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Plexio2 (talk • contribs) 10:21, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
- Not to worry, I believe that by the way Google indexes their pages, it should be updated not to display the article soon. Cheers, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 20:47, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Undelete music network
Thanks for that. It looks like Ill be doing a diamb soon. - Stillwaterising (talk) 16:40, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
- You are welcome! Good luck, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 21:02, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Other sources linking to deleted articles on Wikipedia
Do you know what happens when another site reproduces an article on their site that has been deleted from Wikipedia, but says it is sourced from Wikipedia? The reason I ask you is because I noticed you responded to this post :http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion#Ananta_Das_Babaji about a deleted article, but I've seen that it appears here: http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Ananta-Das-Babaji and at the bottom of the page says it's a Wikipedia article, but links to the deleted page. I've seen this happen in a few instances with different articles, do you know if Wikipedia does anything about it or it doesn't matter? Thanks, MistyMisty333 (talk) 09:55, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
- I must admit, Misty, that I'm not very familiar with how Wikipedia mirror sites work. However, I would guess that they update their articles regularly (rather than instantly), so that articles deleted on Wikipedia will stick around longer on mirrors. You can take a look at Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks to try to learn more about it. I hope this has helped, cheers! Arbitrarily0 (talk) 12:28, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Simplelinux deletion
hi, I would love to know why you deleted Simplelinux article, I see all saying it notability or something, can I preserve it in the Wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Farizluqman (talk • contribs) 12:22, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
- Hi Fariz! The article was deleted because there was consensus to do so at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simplelinux. The discussion came to the conclusion that the subject of the article did not meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline, and so was deleted. Let me know if there's anything else I can clarify for you, cheers! Arbitrarily0 (talk) 12:35, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
I saw you gave the user [Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Confirmed&diff=347392537&oldid=347392427 permission] to upload images for the TVXQ article and the articles relating to it. However, the user has uploaded various WP:COPYVIO images and has licensed them under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License. I'm not looking for them to get blocked or anything, but since you were the one who gave the user the okay, I just thought you could explain to them how uploading images work on Wikipedia as oppose to other Wikis. MS (Talk|Contributions) 01:02, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
- Hi! I see that you've left a number of notices on their talk page. I suggest we give the editor some time to respond to those first, no? Also note that User:Decembersunset is now autconfirmed. Regards, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 02:42, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Hey there. There is some addition information relating to this article that wasn't made public during the AfD for some reason. ticket:2010021410008952 has more information. If you don't have access to this, would you mind if I undid your closure and add my own instead? I would offer to share the information, but unfortunately, the Wikimedia Privacy Policy prevents me from doing so. NW (Talk) 03:49, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
- Sure, go right ahead, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 03:52, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you very much :) NW (Talk) 03:56, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
- No problem! Take care, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 04:01, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you very much :) NW (Talk) 03:56, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks "Boss"
I already had one source in the DrV and the other I felt was probably a PR-respin but upon rereading it, I'm not sure so I mentioned in in the DrV. Thanks! Hobit (talk) 18:21, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
- No problem! And thanks for taking time to comment at the deletion review. Cheers, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 20:42, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Deletion review for Jason Upton
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Jason Upton. 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 don't understand why this article was deleted. Jason Upton is a Christian artist known worldwide and considered influential by many as the links below testify.
Based on Wikipedia's criteria, an artist is recognized as being notable when he:
- Has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician or ensemble itself and reliable.
Here are some of the many articles available on the internet: http://www.relevantmagazine.com/god/worship/features/260 http://www.soulshine.ca/reviews/albumReview.php?arid=668 http://www.crosswalk.com/music/1116560/ http://www.crosswalk.com/music/1110242/ https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/music/reviews/2002/yourlovebrokethrough.html
- Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable).
Integrity Music and EMI CMG (includes Sparrow Records, etc.) are a major music labels, regrouping notable artists and bands as Chris Tomlin, Underoath, KJ-52, Paul Baloche, Kirk Franklin, and many more. (N.B. : The affirmation on itickets.com from the President of Integrity Music is enforcing Jason Upton's notability.) http://www.amazon.com/Beautiful-People-Jason-Upton/dp/B000RN37V4, http://www.itickets.com/news/index.html?detail=1&id=962, http://itunes.apple.com/us/album/you-are-one-performance-track/id320166453, http://ca.music.yahoo.com/release/43550306
I suggest that this article be rewritten as soon as possible.Cgadbois (talk) 05:26, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
- As User:Stifle noted at the deletion review, it's normally preferred to contact the closing administrator beforehand (as I suspect things could have been resolved without it). Now that the discussion has been listed, however, it's probably best to just let it continue. No worries, cheers! Arbitrarily0 (talk) 19:31, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry, no offense, I am quite new with this process. Cgadbois (talk) 19:36, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
- Oh don't worry about it all! You're fine, take care! Arbitrarily0 (talk) 20:40, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
- Hi Arbitrarily0! I'm not sure I understand the process of userfication, i read the related page but I don't get it. Is it that I need to present an updated version of User:Cgadbois/Jason_Upton? To whom, where? The updates will permit to the article to be republished? I know I have a lot of question, to be honest I'm frenchspeaking and I seldom come to edit in the English section. Cheers! Cgadbois (talk) 00:16, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry Cgadbois, I meant to leave a note here first. Here's all you need to know: simply work on the article as much as you see fit (sourcing content, etc.), and then when you feel it is ready (when it is shown 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"), make another listing at deletion review. Let me know of any points I can clarify, and good luck! Arbitrarily0 (talk) 00:47, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
- That's clear enough for me, Thanks. Cgadbois (talk) 00:55, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
- No problem! Arbitrarily0 (talk) 00:59, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
- That's clear enough for me, Thanks. Cgadbois (talk) 00:55, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry Cgadbois, I meant to leave a note here first. Here's all you need to know: simply work on the article as much as you see fit (sourcing content, etc.), and then when you feel it is ready (when it is shown 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"), make another listing at deletion review. Let me know of any points I can clarify, and good luck! Arbitrarily0 (talk) 00:47, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
- Hi Arbitrarily0! I'm not sure I understand the process of userfication, i read the related page but I don't get it. Is it that I need to present an updated version of User:Cgadbois/Jason_Upton? To whom, where? The updates will permit to the article to be republished? I know I have a lot of question, to be honest I'm frenchspeaking and I seldom come to edit in the English section. Cheers! Cgadbois (talk) 00:16, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
- Oh don't worry about it all! You're fine, take care! Arbitrarily0 (talk) 20:40, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry, no offense, I am quite new with this process. Cgadbois (talk) 19:36, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
WikiProject Industrial design
Hi, I read that you have a bot (Arbitrarily0Bot) working with AWB. Could you add the {{WikiProject_Industrial_design}} banner to 97 talk pages BASED on their article having a Category:Computer-aided design (no subcategories please) tag. Is that something you do?... ZooFari began our project tagging and got there, then he retired... Thanks if you can, --AlainR345Techno-Wiki-Geek 16:13, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
- Hi Alain! I'd be glad to help! The only problem is that a certain bug relating to the bot is yet to be fixed, but I'd be happy to start the tagging as soon as it's cleared up. See the discussion at User talk:Magioladitis#Exceptional work if you're interested. So sorry about this, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 22:26, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
- OK Mr. I see that discussion. But if I understand it is now 'cleared up'... Also that same Magioladitis did some other tagging for us in the last hours. So are you all set my friend? --AlainR345Techno-Wiki-Geek 18:04, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
- Great, then I should be able to test out Arbitrarily0Bot shortly. Just to be clear, you'd still like only the articles in Category:Computer-aided design to be tagged? Arbitrarily0 (talk) 19:17, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
- Yep, the reasoning here is that CAD is a fact of life in Industrial design today (in fact you will observe that CAD IS already a subcategory of Industrial design in the Wikipedia tree). On the other hand, I feel that going through the 2 subcategories of CAD: 'CAD file formats' and 'Computer-aided design software' becomes too specialized and is/would be better handled by computer-oriented WikiProjects. I must note that I'm especially fond of this tagging job of yours as it is the last Bot one for this fairly new project before we ask Xenobot for auto-assessment. Go for it and thanks! --AlainR345Techno-Wiki-Geek 20:47, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Done - 97 articles tagged - there you go, sorry for the delay. Let me know if there's any other areas I can tag for you, cheers! Arbitrarily0 (talk) 00:04, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
- Yep, the reasoning here is that CAD is a fact of life in Industrial design today (in fact you will observe that CAD IS already a subcategory of Industrial design in the Wikipedia tree). On the other hand, I feel that going through the 2 subcategories of CAD: 'CAD file formats' and 'Computer-aided design software' becomes too specialized and is/would be better handled by computer-oriented WikiProjects. I must note that I'm especially fond of this tagging job of yours as it is the last Bot one for this fairly new project before we ask Xenobot for auto-assessment. Go for it and thanks! --AlainR345Techno-Wiki-Geek 20:47, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
- Great, then I should be able to test out Arbitrarily0Bot shortly. Just to be clear, you'd still like only the articles in Category:Computer-aided design to be tagged? Arbitrarily0 (talk) 19:17, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
- OK Mr. I see that discussion. But if I understand it is now 'cleared up'... Also that same Magioladitis did some other tagging for us in the last hours. So are you all set my friend? --AlainR345Techno-Wiki-Geek 18:04, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
- Fabulous... we're now waiting for Xenobot to kick in tomorrow. Automated tagging for the ID project has now reached as far as was possible I guess. Now that your talking about 'areas', there could possibly be one extra auto-tagging, but I don't know if it's doable with AWB; it's related to the fact that ID started recently a new Design portal related to ID, Interior design, and Graphic design.
- Therefore, for the pool of all articles having either:
- a) a {{WikiProject_Industrial_design}} banner on their talk page OR
- b) a Category:Interior design tag (or subcategory) on their page:
- 1) IF not present, put this line in its proper place in the article:
- ==See also==
- 2) Then put this line (IF not present) under the See also section (which will by then always exist by virtue of 1)...)
- {{Portal|Design|Design_portal_logo.jpg}}
- Is that something that can be done? (For GD we'll let them do their own stuff) --AlainR345Techno-Wiki-Geek 22:53, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, as far as I know, AutoWikiBrowser isn't equipped to handle that task. It might be worth looking into at bot requests though, I'm not sure. Sorry I'm not much help for this, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 14:51, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
- Is that something that can be done? (For GD we'll let them do their own stuff) --AlainR345Techno-Wiki-Geek 22:53, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Two keep !votes that don't cite any policy and didn't respond to refutation and one extensively argued delete !vote seems to add up to "Relist for more thorough discussion" rather than "keep," no? THF (talk) 01:00, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
- That is correct, but in this particular case I'm not sure that the keep !votes are to be discounted as such. Nevertheless, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt because it's Tuesday - cheers! Arbitrarily0 (talk) 02:38, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Samuel Blanning
The admin who deleted BZPower (which was up for undeletion), User:Samuel Blanning, does not edit any more. TN05 15:43, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
- That's fine, then you may proceed to deletion review if you think it's appropriate. Let me know if you have any questions, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 15:54, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Richard Dawkins
Hi. I have inserted the following remark in the "Richard Dawkins" entry:
This view has been rebuffed by other scientists arguing that Darwin's inherent claim, ratio is a perfect tool to fathom 'reality' is out of kilter even within the house of science (challenged e.g by quantum theory and neurobiology), and that intuition, e.g. religious intuition, can be another tool to fathom particular aspects of 'reality', exemplified for instance by the intuition of mastergrade extreme sports athletes called "flow"[1].
It is visible only when I am logged in, not otherwise. Any help appreciated Falk55 (talk) 18:05, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
- Greetings! The reason for this is that another editor has reverted your changes (see here). I would suggest that you bring up your concerns on the article's talk page, at Talk:Richard Dawkins. Let me know if there's anything else I can do for you, cheers! Arbitrarily0 (talk) 19:27, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Atlas Design
Hello again! I wrote you earlier about the Atlas Design page. I will try to rewrite the page so you can take a look at it later. I have a question though. After I´ve done this will it be possible to do a search on google and find the wikipedia page? I´m not sure I understand the difference between what I´m doing now and what I did the first time. Thanks so far! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Atlrmpr (talk • contribs) 08:28, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
- Hi Altrmprl, as for the Google search, I believe it will be indexed by Google, but it will probably not be one of the first results by searching for "Atlas Design". The difference in what you're doing now is that you're writing it in your userspace at User:Atlrmpr/Atlas Design (so that it won't be speedily deleted so easily), and that you're going to write it so that it's more neutral and less of an advertisement (I can help with this). Good luck and cheers! Arbitrarily0 (talk) 10:30, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
- Hello! I rewrote the Atlas Design page as you told me and now I just want to know if it´s ok? I couldn´t see it on the mainpage. Let me know if there is anything else I have to change. Thanks so far! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Atlrmpr (talk • contribs) 08:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
- Here is my suggestion, Atlrmpr: try to incorporate reliable secondary sources into the article. Since the article currently looks almost exactly the same as when it was deleted, it will need citations to back up its claims and to assert notability. Regards, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 12:27, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
- Hello! I rewrote the Atlas Design page as you told me and now I just want to know if it´s ok? I couldn´t see it on the mainpage. Let me know if there is anything else I have to change. Thanks so far! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Atlrmpr (talk • contribs) 08:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
AFD: Agency Republic
Hey,
You closed AFD:Agency Republic as keep - but I think maybe a relist would be better?
The arguments for keep were based on the sourcing, but no one weighed in after the comments at the end (mine and another) which suggest that the limited interest and circulation primary sources were are the same two articles across different mirrored news sites. (They are all owned by the same company, all link to each other in the footer, etc).
Indeed, the same user created the article from a cut-and-paste as well as locating the article's "multiple sources". (The changes you link to were simply reformatting of existing sources added by the article creator.) WP:DUCK, in my opinion, would suggest that this was done intentionally to give the article the appearance of notability based on mulitiple sources.
I think more time to develop a consensus would be better here - what do you think? Addionne (talk) 11:40, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
- Alright, well let's talk about it a bit. By looking at the changes since the nomination, I saw that there were two references added, them being campaignlive.co.uk and marketingmagazine.co.uk. When combined with the rest of the sources in the article, does this not satisfy general notability guideline, as "a topic [that] has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"? I understand you made a comment about this already in the discussion, but it can't hurt to lay it out here again. Thanks for approaching me about this, and looking forward to hearing back from you, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 12:44, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
- No problem - I figured it was better to talk here than to go through the hassle of relisting or going through a deletion review or anything crazy like that. The fact about the article is there are just too many connections for it to sit right with me. It seems as though the only news outlets that report about Agency Republic are Brand Republic - the company responsible for issuing a majority of their awards - and other news sites that are the same company as Brand Republic. (Marketing, Campaign and Brand Republic among others - check their websites for evidence of this).
- Obviously this source as a clear bias in reporting on the winner of the awards they sponsor - and no one else seems to have picked up the Brand Republic awards or their winners as newsworthy. In my mind, this makes them neither multiple, nor independent. The other awards (webbys, one show, etc) are limited in scope and receive very little press - certainly not enough to pass notability on winners / nominees. Beyond that, these sites only mention Agency Republic, there are no features or articles.
- Addionne (talk) 22:42, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
- Very interesting indeed! Can you provide some specific evidence that the reporting companies are related and that they have a bias/deal/relationship towards Agency Republic? By the way, here's two more other tidbits for investigation: AAR appoints Agency Republic's Marshall as head of digital and Farfar founder joins Agency Republic. Cheers, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 02:11, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
- Simply looking at the footer page at any of the news sites shows that they are related to each other - part of Haymarket Media Group. (Including one of the two links you provided above as well). Though I can not find a direct link to Agency Republic is related directly to this group, it seems suspect that Haymarket media promotes AR so heavily while no one else does. (Again, WP:DUCK) Addionne (talk) 14:09, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
- Does Farfar founder joins Agency Republic have a "Haymarket" link? Here's some more to look into (it doesn't look like any of these are affiliated with Haymarket and the such): Agency Republic wins Bud Light digital brief, Agency Republic scoops six figure Samaritans business, Agency Republic makes six new appointments, and a company report. Additionally, these two articles, Who will be company of the year? and London Agency Dares Expansion in N.Y. give mention to Agency Republic. Let me know what you think, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 22:46, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
- Simply looking at the footer page at any of the news sites shows that they are related to each other - part of Haymarket Media Group. (Including one of the two links you provided above as well). Though I can not find a direct link to Agency Republic is related directly to this group, it seems suspect that Haymarket media promotes AR so heavily while no one else does. (Again, WP:DUCK) Addionne (talk) 14:09, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
- Very interesting indeed! Can you provide some specific evidence that the reporting companies are related and that they have a bias/deal/relationship towards Agency Republic? By the way, here's two more other tidbits for investigation: AAR appoints Agency Republic's Marshall as head of digital and Farfar founder joins Agency Republic. Cheers, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 02:11, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi, Arbitrrarily0. I saw that you closed the deletion discussion regarding this article. Do you agree with the deletion from the article of the images of Tim and Moby? If so, no problem, but if not, please let me know how to proceed to restore them. Thanks! Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:41, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
- Hi Silvers! I'm not sure I entirely understand your query, so please let me know if this isn't what you're looking for: some of the files were deleted because of discussion at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2010 March 4. I would recommend that you ask the administrator who deleted the files for advice (note that the discussion I closed pertained only to the article, not to its images). Did this help? Please don't hesitate to tell me if it didn't, best regards, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 04:05, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi! Thanks for answering my request on Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 March 4. However, I made a mistake when copypasting the name of the file to be restored. "My" picture is File:Millau-Viaduct-France-20070909.JPG; it should be identical to commons:File:Millau-Viaduct-France-20070909.jpg. The picture you restored, File:Millau-Viaduct-France-2-20070909.JPG, is another picture of the same bridge by the same user, so the problem is exactly the same. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 08:55, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
- Done - alright, I took your word for it on this one. Cheers, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 11:19, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks a lot! Jastrow (Λέγετε) 11:46, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
- You're most welcome, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 12:29, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks a lot! Jastrow (Λέγετε) 11:46, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
You closed this as delete; since then a number of SPA accounts have been putting it in again, under various versions of his name, and getting them deleted G4. As I did one of the G4 deletions, the fans are agitating at me. One of the new versions contained extra sources, and I put it in the Incubator at WP:Article Incubator/Mark Boardman and told TVfanaticlady (talk · contribs) on her talk page that when she thought it was good enough she should approach you as closing admin, and if she could not convince you take it to DRV. Instead another SPA, Celebrityreview (talk · contribs), popped up with another version. So I have protected the title for the moment, and will refer the author, and an IP who is complaining on my talk page, to my earlier message to TVfanaticlady. This is to warn you to expect the fan club.
In fact, looking again at the Incubator version, I see that the extra interview which I thought was perhaps a significant source is not - I mistook it for an interview with Boardman, but it is actually with someone else, Dave Berry, and Boardman is not mentioned at all in the interview, only in one of the fan comments at the bottom. So it is scraping the barrel, and I don't think the incubated article is any better than the AfD'd one.
If they should manage to convince you, by all mean undo my protection. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 15:13, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
- Sounds good John, thanks for letting me know! Arbitrarily0 (talk) 03:42, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks
If Wiki in Portuguese had good managers in this matter of elimination, and good rules too, half the problems that happened there would never have happened. Quintinense (talk) 22:17, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you - cheers, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 03:46, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
This afd in which you participated is being discussed at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 March 12.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:06, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks, I've commented. Cheers, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 03:02, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Paradigm City
Hi. Thanks for doing the merge of Paradigm City. This is just a reminder to tag the redirect with {{R from merge}} to prevent a future RfD. The {{Copied}} template is also good to use. Flatscan (talk) 05:50, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
- Ah, Flatscan! Thanks for letting me know about this! As far as {{copied}} goes though, do you think it's necessary when there's an {{oldafdfull|result='''merge to [[destination]]'''}} in place (see Talk:Paradigm City for an example)? Just wondering, and thanks again, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 21:16, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
- My opinion is that it's better to have both, since they provide non-redundant information. Sometimes the "merge" is done by redirecting only – without copying any content – due to redundancy or other reasons. Flatscan (talk) 06:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
- Right, sounds good to me! I wonder if somehow {{oldafdfull}} could be updated so that when result=merge, it displays the {{copied}} notice. Anyways, thanks again! Arbitrarily0 (talk) 21:55, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
- My opinion is that it's better to have both, since they provide non-redundant information. Sometimes the "merge" is done by redirecting only – without copying any content – due to redundancy or other reasons. Flatscan (talk) 06:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Rollback
Thank you very much for granting my rollback request. I will be careful not to use rollback to revert good faith edits or to use it for edit-warring. Thanks again, Megan|talkcontribs 15:55, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
- You're most welcome! I'm sure you'll do fine, cheers! Arbitrarily0 (talk) 21:59, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Hey, hope all's well. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/In closing was breaking the relisting script, so I've deleted it pending a more developed solution. –Juliancolton | Talk 21:24, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks, and hope all is well with you too! It's no problem at all, I've fixed the link here and created a much simpler version of the old version at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/In closing (note that, on certain days, such as today, the deletion log 'in closing' is too large to be transcluded). I'm not sure why that relist problem occured, but thanks for taking care of it. Cheers, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 21:45, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Updating about me, so many things have changed!
- Thanks GeneralCheese! Arbitrarily0 (talk) 10:35, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, quick question
I'm still fairly new to all this, but what does this mean:
- (User rights log); 20:41 . . Arbitrarily0 (talk | contribs) changed rights for User:N432138 from Confirmed users to (none) (autoconfirmed)
N432138 (talk) 13:33, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
- Hi! This means that the 'confirmed flag' has been removed from your account because you are now autoconfirmed. Does this make sense? Don't worry, this won't affect your editing in any way. Let me know, cheers! Arbitrarily0 (talk) 20:59, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
- Hey! Thanks much. forever learning... N432138 (talk) 13:27, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
For all the refunds you've given
|
The Admin's Barnstar | |
| For your diligent attention to WP:REFUND, a venue to which I had planned to pay close attention (but have failed). I see that you've taken the torch and carried it well. Thank you, and keep up the good work. –xenotalk 21:03, 18 March 2010 (UTC) |
- Wow, thanks Xeno! I always assumed it was a thankless job, but apparently not! I can't thank you enough for your appreciation and encouragement! Take most excellent care and my best regards, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 21:22, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Requesting WikiProject tagger please
Can I request your bot for Wikipedia:WikiProject South Park and Category:WikiProject South Park Thank you! Okip 03:21, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Regarding two recent AfDs
Hi, Arbitrarily0
I'd like to have a word with you about result of two AfDs that you have closed a couple of days ago: (1) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peek-A-Boo Poker and (2) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bubble Bath Babes.
I am afraid I find the closure result somewhat questionable, since if you look again, you will see that none of the participants that supported Keep have been able to prove the notability of the article. So, I believe having Keep as the result, per Wikipedia policy, is quite unwarranted. Therefore, one would expect that a closure result should be any one of Merge, Redirect or Delete. (Although I initially was in favor of deletion, now I am convince that merger is a perhaps valid outcome.)
Would you please kindly reconsider your decision? Fleet Command (talk) 08:24, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
hello
hi! I was in touch with you a week or so ago in regards to the article 'New Rochelle Council on the Arts', however, it was through a different account named Nrartshistory. I have not been able to re-access that account since then and my password does not seem to work. Therefore, I have created a new account which I am using now - nrarts, and I am hoping that this is acceptable given the circumstances. I figured the original account can be redirected to this one. Please advise me as to whether or not this account swap is acceptable, or not. I am going to re-post the article I had written and will make sure to follow up by adding to its content (with specific mention of past exhibits, and contributions to the community at large). Thanks
- ^ Quest, Falk (2009). The Ratio Illusion. Norderstedt: BoD. p. 224. ISBN 9-783839-1-139066.
{{cite book}}: Check|isbn=value: length (help)