User talk:Spartaz

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

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:

• Deletion Review
• Articles for Deletion
• Unblocks

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

You may want to increment {{Archive basics}} to |counter= 25 as User talk:Spartaz/Archive24 is larger than the recommended 150Kb.

Just sayin'

I was doing a bit of reading this AM over at ARCA, and your following comment made me smile "...my autocorrect hates arbcom it keeps changing it to random or wrecked." Mine keeps changing it to crambo. ^Atsme 👩‍💻 📧 12:28, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Kst

Humbug! I believe your handing of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kst (software) was flawed. There was no consensus to delete. There was a possibility of discussion coming to a merge/redirect. But it requires someone to do it. I cannot offer merge unless I am prepared to commit future time to do it. Of major concern was this content removal [1] it not appropriate to be marked as WP:MINOR not does it match the description which implies removal of wikilink. Please resolve these matters. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 16:32, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Seconded - the outcome was certainly not delete. Relisting might have been appropriate, but certainly not deletion. Samsara 18:11, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Exactly how was my close flawed or do you just disagree with the outcome? As for the edit its a standard auto generated one from the automated AFD closing script. They are all like that and I don't see what is wrong with it. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:21, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

• Okay ... different approach. One concern is this edit is marked as minor.

• Perceived flaw: My reading of WP:MINOR is this was a content removal not a wikilink change and should not have been marked as minor.

• If this was done by macro/whatever then my minding is that this is behaving incorrectly and should be challenged.

• I would have accepted that edit if not marked as minor but would have preferred an improve description as it was not a wikilink change but effectively removal of unreferrenced content.
• I have been WP:BOLD and reverted that edit and shown what I believe would have been appropriate for removal of a wikilink and marked that in accordance with WP:MINOR. I do believe best practice does require a reference and have gone on to mark that as citation needed which I intend to satisfy in due course.

Hopefully this is acceptable and not in circumvention of the AfD decision.Djm-leighpark (talk) 13:13, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

• The second matter is regards to the closing of the AfD. If I were to take this to WP:DRV I would anticipate there would be found nothing technically wrong and the decision would be endorse. However given that sources were more recently found and better validated, possibilities of willingness to undertake a merge may have occurred, better and more usual practice may have been to extend for another week. Though to be frank its unlikely I have the bandwidth to improve the article nor to locate (possible) relevant offline sources in a reasonable period (I've just checked a couple of books several I have but no joy there). But we may have found someone to do the redirect/merge. Obviously should I come across two brilliant articles in a Jumble sale on Kst I may care to redo the article, but pragmatically from where we are there may simply be a reasonable case for a redirect with categories:

• Is there anything in the AfD which would prevent me creating a redirect providing the target was referenced?
• In such a case my preference is to edit the existing article into a redirect with history, but I suspect some might say I am being too pedantic in requesting a WP:REFUND here as the content is minimal and the history is likely limited. Would you accept a request for a refund for that purpose or alternatively would you be adverse to requesting such a refund for that purpose at WP:REFUND if you were not prepared to do so yourself?

Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 13:13, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

no problem at all doing a history undelete under a redirect. As for the minor edit I see no harm in it. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:49, 14 April 2019 (UTC)