Jump to content

User talk:Spartaz

Page contents not supported in other languages.
This user has administrator privileges on the English Wikipedia.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Spartaz (talk | contribs) at 05:00, 11 December 2010 (→‎AFD on General Mayhem: cmt). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Spartaz (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Alt
What again?

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.

Useful Links:

Please don't leave talkback templates as I always watchlist pages when I edit and I'm perfectly capable of looking for a reply myself.
please stay in the top three tiers

Exodwarf planet

The user who created the now deleted exodwarf planet article seems to have copied most (all?) of the content in what was exodwarf planet and now put it in Extrasolar Dwarf Planet. This does not quite seem in line with the consensus reached in the deletion discussion, though there was some support for moving. I am not sure what the proper course of action is, so I thought I would let you know. James McBride (talk) 09:51, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I can tell you what the correct course of action is: tag it as a G4 speedy. I have now done this. The user in question is using Wikipedia to promote his own blog and his own made up word. What he's done is invented a new word on his blog, gone around to a bunch of astronomy-related websites and promoted his neologism in the user comments, then started a Wikipedia article using his blog and user comments as sources. I don't think that kind of behaviour should be encouraged. Reyk YO! 22:55, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You listen here! I have made articles about extrasolar dwarf planets on Wikipedia and I have not cared about the name. I had been told that there is a problem with Exodwarf Planet as a name so fine Extrasolar Dwarf Planet is the same idea. Frankly while Exodwarf is not a real word. Exodwarf planet is! I was told that Extrasolar Dwarf Planet is acceptable and peer reviewed, a real word. You have expanded Wikipedia rules beyond what they are here. You are hereby challenged. Yisraelasper (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:03, 6 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Deletion of Celebrity Jeopardy!

Hi. I'm trying to understand your close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Celebrity Jeopardy! (2nd nomination), which was made without comment. How could the result have been arrived at when there was no consensus for the close? When the "keep" remarks amply showed how the nomination rationale did not apply? When the "merge" votes were made without explanation or remarks, and how when the "keep" remarks were never countered? Robert K S (talk) 04:11, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Its hasn't been deleted its been merged. That is a perfectly acceptable outcome and no sourced material need be done if the merge is handled properly. There was a clear majority for a merge and the keep votes on the basis of notability didn't overcome arguments about overkill and the need for independant references. Spartaz Humbug! 05:15, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quackity quack

Should we just do an SPI filing on Mr. FredoMurphy now, or would you rather wait to see if he responds to your query? Tarc (talk) 17:15, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Waiting for the moment. The behavioural evidence is quite compelling to tell the truth. Spartaz Humbug! 18:42, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Resolved
       – Spartaz Humbug! 20:46, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hatya: The Murder

Inre your close, might you please consider setting it up as a redirect to Akshay Kumar? Thank you. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:26, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request reconsideration of deletion of Criticism of Twelver Shi'ism

Greetings, I have indeed read your essay on deletion, and would still like to ask that you reconsider the deletion of the article Criticism of Twelver Shi'ism. Here are a few basics of my stance, and I'd be happy to elaborate on them as needed.

  • More than half of the page of criticism occurred prior to my coming in and making sweeping changes to the article. The article as it stood at deletion bears maybe 20% correspondence with the originally AfD'ed version. I removed extensive amounts of material that had been legitimately objected to, including cites to websites, books which were not accessible online, and some tone issues. I submit the last version had good sourcing, no major tone issues, and no CV issues.
  • I submit that the subject is an extremely notable one. The article helps to explain, not justify, Sunni animosity towards and sectarian violence against Shia Muslims. I had, prior to reading up on the subject a year ago, wondered what possible argument Sunni extremists in Pakistan made for constantly whaling on the Shia minority. I now better understand their claims of justification, though I don't consider them legitimate grounds for violence.
  • While two of the pro-deletion editors phrased their objections in an NPOV way (though the primary of them was not commenting for most of the later portion after I began extensive overhaul), the two most vociferous complainants made a number of strongly POV comments during the discussion, which I submit indicates that a portion of their opposition was against the idea of Shiism being criticised, rather than legitimate objections to sourcing, notability, etc. Following are a few of the more clearly POV quotes:
    • "Both were sentenced to death by uneducated foolish Mullahs of their time (Christians and Sunnis)... It's clear who must be criticized in this matter."
    • "Now, when such people can have divine relation, but Fatima can't?Sunnis must criticize Quran and their books prior to criticizing Shia."
    • "You mention the case of Shia negative view on some of Muhammad's companions. I wonder how much you know about these companions? They were among greatest criminals of the Human's history" (said of major religious figures revered by the Sunni Muslim majority)
  • Note also that these two editors continued to make sectarian arguments that had nothing to do with the article itself, but instead debated whether the Sunni should criticise the Shia, not whether it is a fact that they do. They also engaged in some very evasive reasoning, including rejecting every single reference: books written by Sunni were "accusing, not criticising", books by Shi'a were "not criticism, how can he criticise himself?" and books by non-Muslim academics were "he's not criticising, he's just describing others' criticism". Complainants refused to be nailed down as to exactly what sort of sourcing they'd like to see to prove the, relatively inarguable and quite notable in global politics, fact that "Sunnis criticise aspects of Shia Islam."

Those are the basic wave-tops of my concerns. Fundamentally, I feel that though the intial concerns over the article were quite valid, I improved the article substantially since arriving halfway through the argument. However, two editors who expressed strong and inappropriate POV continued to vocally oppose the article regardless of how I worked to address their concerns. I submit that the topic is highly notable and helps to explain the perspective differences between two major sects of Islam, that the footnoting is pretty solid for a developing article, and that the tone of the article makes it abundantly clear that it is describing criticisms leveled at the Shia rather than endorsing said criticisms.

Thanks for your time and any input. MatthewVanitas (talk) 02:07, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • There was still a well considered delete vote after you noted you had improved the article and DGG is a pretty good touchstone on these kinds of things, but this was a reasonable request and there is never harm in further discussion so I have undeleted and relisted this for further discussion. Perhaps you would be kind enough to notify participants that I have done this and invite themto review their votes based on your improvements. Ta. (Note: this would not be canvassing as its a reasonable request to ask someone if their vote has been swayed by an improvement and they have already participated) Spartaz Humbug! 11:27, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
User Spartaz, I, as one of the strong defender of deletion changed my opinion and we (me and Mathew) decided to improve the article.--Aliwiki (talk) 16:00, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You missed one

I noticed in my watchlist that you were removing backlinks to this article, however, the article has not been deleted yet. I also see now that it's been merged with another, after reading the afd. Rather than revert you, I'm alerting you here, just in case you forgot one.— Dædαlus+ Contribs 11:15, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 December 8#Ronen Altman Kaydar

Hi Spartaz. Would you courtesy blank Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 December 8#Ronen Altman Kaydar? The accusations by the nominator against the subject fall afoul of BLP. Cunard (talk) 11:46, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AFD on General Mayhem

I'm a bit concerned about this result. There was most certainly not enough discussion there or response to fairly consider that any sort of consensus for delete. I mean, I don't disagree with the outcome; General Mayhem likely does *not* meet the notability requirements. But this was a very, very deficient AFD that should not have been closed as anything but no consensus. Vertigo Acid (talk) 17:05, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Bigboards numbers are completely irrelevant to assessing notability which is generally founded on the presence of independent secondary reliable sources. The two votes that references bigboards were not founded in policy and therefore carried very little weight while the delete votes were clearly policy founded by citing the lack of references. Therefore the outcome was clear. We don't count heads when we close discussion but measure the arguments against policy so a majoririty of weak non-policy based arguments do not prevail against well argued deletion votes that specifically reference policy. In this case the votes were evenly cast but only 1 side was arguing notability from a policy perspective. Spartaz Humbug! 17:14, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But there was only one comment, one keep, and one delete. That's not consensus, even if you give the comment and keep absolutely no weight. I realize WP is not a democracy, but the AFD did not have enough discussion to warrant closing it. I will be taking this to deletion review.Vertigo Acid (talk) 20:55, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any sources at all? Spartaz Humbug! 05:00, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Spartaz&oldid=401729797"