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 RebeccaGreen (talk | contribs) at 11:32, 9 December 2018 (→‎Closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bernice Madigan (2nd nomination): Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Hello

Hi Spartaz, I don't think you know me. But I've seen you around AfD and have always seen you as a model administrator. Just came around to tell you that I was sad that you handed in your bit and do hope you re-take your tools whenever you feel like it, and continue your stellar contributions. Most warmly, Lourdes 01:03, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • While I sat on the other side of that DRV from you, I too wanted to say that I feel you are a very good admin and a Wikipedia has been lucky to have you around. I hope you return someday soon. Good luck on what I hope is just a break. Hobit (talk) 17:03, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

unblock

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Spartaz (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Please can I be unblocked so that I can pay my respects to SBHB who has sadly passed away?

Accept reason:

I believe you asked to be blocked, thus you are free to request to be unblocked. Therefore, I have lifted your block. Yamla (talk) 21:54, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A box of matches for you!

Strike a light....
You want to burn some witches, here you go. (Just make sure logically they weigh the same as a duck, so you know they're made of wood....) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 00:10, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back!

Nice to see that you also have decided to return! Also, in case you don't already know (I gave this warning to Randykitty) there's been several compromised accounts recently, 3 of them admins, so just a heads up on security. SemiHypercube ✎ 22:22, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Precious
Six years!

B.l.o.w.

Hey, since the parent article has been deleted, can you delete the following related pages:

Regards.--NØ 17:37, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They were already batched into this AfD with pretty obvious consensus to delete all of them (except the template), or redirect to the main article (which has been deleted for non-notability.--NØ 11:09, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake then. Spartaz Humbug! 17:20, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Hi, just curious how you determined the consensus was "delete" at this AfD. Thanks - wolf 11:25, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • The concept appears potentially notable but it was conclusively shown in the discussion that the content failed V, was from a SPS and had a lot of accuracy issues. Removing this content would leave nothing - hence I deleted it, but would be pleased if someone could restart it with proper sourcing. essentially, its a TNT case. Spartaz Humbug! 11:36, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What about moving it draft or the authors sandbox? Give them a chance to improve it? Couldn't hurt WP, may actually help that editor... - wolf 11:49, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If it was requested by the author I would consider it but is it not the case they already have the material at Wikia? Spartaz Humbug! 12:07, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bernice Madigan (2nd nomination)

Hi, I notice that you have closed this AfD saying that the "result" was Redirect. How did you determine that, when 6 editors argued that the subject met WP:GNG through WP:SIGCOV and WP:SUSTAINED? One vote was an outright Delete, three were redirect or delete/redirect, and two (including the nominator) suggested a minibio. How does that result in a redirect? Also, how does it help establish notability guidelines for supercentenarians, which the Wikiproject LONGEVITY argue that they are doing? Or have they already been established, but not actually stated anywhere, so that editors waste time arguing on AfDs for cases that the LONGEVITY project have already determined are outside their unstated guidelines? I will ask this question on the LONGEVITY page, though in reality it is an ANTILONGEVITY project, with some of the most emotional language I have seen in Wikipedia discussions used by those trying to delete all these articles, rather than assessing them individually. RebeccaGreen (talk) 08:50, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Subprojects don't write policy. Not all votes are equal and jts not a democracy or straight up vote. The delete side had better arguments. Listifying barely or non-notable subjects into one notable or significant list is an established practise, which is why I closed it that way. . What biographical data has been lost that couldn't be included jn a list. Spartaz Humbug! 10:42, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, a lot. Did you even look at the article before deleting it? I had just done some revisions, which, I discovered, added back some information deleted by a supercentenarian deleter saying it was "unsourced" - it was not unsourced, it was just not specifically referenced at that point in the article. The Delete side arguments are highly emotional, and are based on making the article so minimal that there is nothing worth saving, rather than actually checking if there is SIGCOV and adding it. However, your answer makes clear to me that there is no point at all in participating in AfDs for people who "could just be included in a list", if their articles are so poor that it appears that there is nothing else to say about them.RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:32, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Spartaz&oldid=872820429"