User talk:Spartaz

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)

• 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)

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)

Done Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:18, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Cheers! --Malkinann (talk) 03:27, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

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 Nobody^{My talk} 05:18, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

• As I'm sure you know, I never count by numbers and weight up arguments against policy but I would be a fool if I believed that even subconciously the actual numbers of contributers on each side didn't affect my balancing act so I agree that this deletion debate is sufficiently tainted to be worth re-running. I'm going to undelete shortly (i.e maybe by this evening) and will renominate. I hope I can rely on you to leave a neutral pointer of the new discussion to the participants of the previous AFD. Thanks. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:36, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
  • I shall do that now. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:53, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
• 'Ok I relisted, please be a sweety and let everyone know for me. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
  • I shall do that now. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:53, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
    • Thanks. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:55, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
      • You're welcome. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:59, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Building consensus on copyright issue

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)

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)

• Signaling your intentions would undoubtedly helped. What article are you merging it to? Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:43, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Pfft... You know me better than to contest a prod without a good reason, let alone use DRV(!) to do it ;)
    It and some other related stubs could be merged to Internet Relay Chat services, although in revisiting the WikiProject's To Do list, I remember now we were considering a Glossary of Internet Relay Chat services article since there are quite a number of these software packages (sometimes used in combination with one another) which are in mainstream use. This is the software that provides ChanServ, NickServ, etc services on IRC networks and while certainly a lesser known topic, is hardly not notable :) --Tothwolf (talk) 17:55, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

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)

• 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)
  • 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)

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)

• Its already written into policy see Wikipedia:NOTLAW#Wikipedia_is_not_a_bureaucracy but a mention at policies and guidelines wouldn't hurt. In fairness to Barbario, I can understand his frustrations but I don't really understand why every discussion they embroil themselves in swiftly turns into a rant about admins being wrong. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:01, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

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)

• Done. Thanks for the suggestion. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:09, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks. Hans Adler 12:37, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

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)

• Wow, that's nice a compliment. Its makes a nice change from the usual fare I get. Thanks. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:14, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

• Nope, no fare from me either - just wanted to thank you for taking the time to close it fittingly. Take care and best regards, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:55, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

• Impressive call - I tried to close it myself but some real-life things I had to tend to got in the way. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:15, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• Yep, I'll comment on them later today. Don't worry about misreading the time stamp, you certainly know who are the only people who never make mistakes... :-) Thanks! --Crusio (talk) 09:38, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

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)

• I misread the timestamp on the relisting so I put the article back up. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:03, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks! Any input you might give would be welcome.RMc (talk) 13:45, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

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)

• 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)

Thanks, Spartaz. I try to clean up old AFDs occasionally, those came up. tedder (talk) 07:26, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

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)

• It was discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kimberly Freeman. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:45, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

NetLabs

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

• What sources do you intend to add? Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:01, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

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)

• One decent source there so I don't mind giving this another chance. The article has been restored. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:00, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

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)

• You are very welcome. :-) Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:52, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

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)

• 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)

• 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)

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)

tomshardware.com is RS, isn't it? EuroElessar (talk) 07:58, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Page's photo of OpenSource Mag 28 Nigmatullin Ruslan (talk) 09:45, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 'And it exists is not a reason for a wikipedia article. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:34, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

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)
  • 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)
    • There were already situations with well-known free opensource projects this year. The result was also delete and because it was incorrect rules were changed (so articles were restored). This article contains all information why it's hard to collect reliable sources for opensource projects. Needed sources were presented to you (may be not the best, but they were). Please read it and try to understand that free OpenSource software has no "advirtisement reasons" because it's free (I don't mean some commercial one, like Qt). I just want to provide good information about my product to users, and haveno other goals. Although Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, so there shouldn't be too much bureaucracy and some rules should be broken for giving actual info, as it already was with other OpenSource projects. Nigmatullin Ruslan (talk) 15:43, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
      • Your product? Exactly what is your connection to this subject? Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:54, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
        • I'm main developer of qutIM (AUTHORS). There you can see full actual list of developers. By the way, have you read qutIM's article before deletion? I was in the authors list in it. Nigmatullin Ruslan (talk) 16:20, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
          • Then per WP:COI you should walk away and let someone else deal with this. I think we are done here now. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:06, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
            • Please, read this again. "If the article is not worded like an advertisement, Invoking WP:COI is unrealistic, especially as no commercial interests are at stake.". Have you read WP:COI yourself? Please, name me points by which it's COI. It's not financial one (project is free), not self-promotion (by the same reason + there is no links to my personal blogs or any info about myself). Also article is done in Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view. Nigmatullin Ruslan (talk) 18:32, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
              • You are a very persistent fellow. Perhaps I should be clearer. You haven't persuaded me to change my decision and I have no interest in assisting you to use wikipedia as a platform for a product you produce personally. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:52, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
        • And that RFC appears to have failed to gain wide acceptance and has no standing in deciding notability here. Otherwise it would be a guideline. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:55, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
    • Thank you for the answer. I think that now I have a better understanding how Wikipedia works. It is pretty sad. Realaaa (talk) 15:45, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
      • Sad or not, we have to have structure and we have to have inclusion standards. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:54, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

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)

Deletion review for TestLink

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]