User talk:Spartaz/Archive9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< User talk:Spartaz

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Random832 (talk | contribs) at 16:43, 7 April 2009 (→‎Re: ANI: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

enThis user is a native speaker of the English language.
ru-1Этот участник владеет русским языком на начальном уровне.
da-1Denne bruger har et grundlæggende kendskab til dansk.

Merry Christmas

A NobodyMy talk is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

--A NobodyMy talk 03:08, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas from Promethean

O'Hai there Spartaz, Merry Christmas!

Spartaz,
I wish you and your family all the best this Christmas and that you also have a Happy and safe new year.
Thankyou for all your contributions to Wikipedia this year and I look forward to seeing many more from you in the future.
Your work around Wikipedia has not gone un-noticed, this notice is testimony to that
Please feel free to drop by my talkpage any time to say Hi, as I will probably say Hi back :)

All the Best.   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk)

Peace on Earth, good will to men...

Ecoleetage (talk) wishes you peace!

Spread peace and goodwill by adding {{subst:WikiPeace}} to other's talk pages with a friendly message.
P.S. I am genuinely sorry that we didn't quite hit it off in our recent initial conversation. I sincerely hope I did not bring undue stress to your online time, and that in 2009 we will be able to collaborate together in a positive manner. Be well and enjoy the holiday season. Ecoleetage (talk) 22:09, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Klaksonn

The same thing with another Klaksonn sockpuppet happened here, except it was yesterday. We accused and they retired. --Enzuru 23:03, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Closing stuff at SSP

Hey, just remember to use {{SSPa}} (per instructions at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Administrators), instead of other ways to close discussion threads, which may mess with the main page at WP:SSP, and also with the bot's archival process. Thanks for your help with WP:SSP! Cirt (talk) 17:23, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Son May AFD

Consider yourself nudged ; ) Apparently no one cared enough to even make a half-hearted attempt at redeeming this article. Not a single post-afd edit. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 18:35, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not trying to be bothersome but I was wondering if you were ignoring this by accident or on purpose. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 21:53, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neither. Spartaz Humbug! 21:54, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify now that I have dealt with this but wikipedia hung when I tried this before the new year. Spartaz Humbug! 21:57, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. Thanks much. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 22:03, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Lee new DRV

This is a courtesy notice as you were involved in AFD, DRV or CSD's and are hosting one of the userfied versions of the article in question regarding Matt Lee you may want to comment on the new DRV. Also, if you haven't already, you may also want to check out Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Redirect question and "Need history check for Matt Lee" ANI thread. Thanks. Soundvisions1 (talk) 18:28, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request of User:Ontopofcosts

When you declined his request you said that "Removing cited text is rarely vandalism." I know that it is a typo, just giving you a heads up that you may want to correct that ;). Anyways, happy 09'. Inferno, Lord of Penguins 21:28, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly what I meant. Most removal of cited text is removed as part of a content dispute or due to editorial judgement. Content disputes are specifically not vandalism. Vandalism is something designed to damage the project not misplaced edits as part of a newbies learning the project or poor editorial judgement. The exemption from 3RR for vandalism is to do with stuff like reverting page blanking or reverting someone from keeping adding the word poop etc. I'm concious that most of my edits contain a typo of some description but for a change I actually managed to express what I wanted to say. Happy New Year to you as well. Spartaz Humbug! 21:52, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, thought you meant uncited. Anyways, my bad then. Happy new year. Inferno, Lord of Penguins 22:19, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spartaz/Humbug

Sorry, I goofed when copy-pasting... Happy editing! Jo7hs2 (talk) 00:58, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:WhoWatches

Surely you're right to protect - four unblock requests? I'm confused now! Black Kite 17:58, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • No, only 3. I thought 4 also at first but its looks like Tan had a caching problem because there was no separate request for their unblock declined which overwrote the previous 3. Very odd. Spartaz Humbug! 18:00, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

?

Shouldn't these (Wikipedia:Reward board and Wikipedia:Bounty board) be deleted per Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Sharkface217/Awards Center? --Eustress (talk) 20:06, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • No I don't think they would be covered by the same MFD. They are much more long standing and have far less of a myspace/social networking quality to them. Spartaz Humbug! 23:43, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Love Systems

Deletion review for User:Coaster7/Love_Systems

An editor has asked for a deletion review of User:Coaster7/Love_Systems. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedy-deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Coaster7 (talk) 21:46, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Savoy

Hi Spartaz,

I've been working on the "Nick Savoy" page that was previously deleted. With this new and rewritten article I would like to put it back up again. Since you were involved in the DRV, I would appreciate your feedback on the page of Nick Savoy before I put it back on DRV. Thanks in advance.Coaster7 (talk) 02:28, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dzhugashvili and his cavalcade of socks

Thanks for filing the RFCU for me; just not enough time in the day. You might be interested in some preliminary info I've put together at User:Barneca/watch/banbury‎. --barneca (talk) 03:24, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Washington Metropolitan Association of Chinese Schools

Hello Spartaz. If you don't mind, could you explain why you closed this discussion so soon after it was relisted by Aitias (talk · contribs)? Thanks, Skomorokh 00:35, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, thanks for looking in to that. It's hard to keep track of deletion conventions sometimes so I thought I'd doublecheck that this was not routine. Regards, Skomorokh 00:40, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The short answer is I misread the date of the relist. The long answer is that I better go to bed or at least not admin while I'm sleepy. Thank you for pointing out my error so nicely. I have reversed my actions. Spartaz Humbug! 00:41, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Deletion review for User:Max2004

Dear Spartez. I would like to move that your claim for deletion be made more certain and definite or that it be dismissed for failure to state a claim. CNNfan is a definition of a type of fan which as been notably been accepted as a definition worldwide in encyclopedias and dictionaries: http://www.encyclo.co.uk/define/CNNfan, http://www.google.com/search?q=define%3Acnnfan . The article is intentionally not about a website, especially CNNfan.com which has been online for five years, making it The Longest Running Fansite in News, breaking the records held by FOXfan.com since 2002. Originally, it was submitted as a website, and rejected by Wikipedia. The article was then resubmitted as a type of fan. Does Wikipedia prosecution which has already been tried, double jeopardy prohibited in the fifth amendment to the United States? What was your intention for a Christmas Eve deletion of the CNNfan article ? Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Max2004 (talk • contribs) 19:06, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please read our guideline on reliable sourcing at WP:RS and then the general guideline on notability at WP:N. THe article was deleted because a consensus of editors decided that it did not have sufficient sourcing to meet our notability guidelines. THe discussion is at [[1]]. If you wish to challenge this, you only need to find two sources that meet the standards for secondary sources contained in the sourcing guideline. Best wishes. Spartaz Humbug! 22:08, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a preliminary note, here is yet another encyclopedia containing the term: CNNfan http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/CNNfan —Preceding unsigned comment added by Max2004 (talk • contribs) 19:39, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a preliminary note, here is yet another encyclopedia containing the term: CNNfan http://wapedia.mobi/en/CNNfan comment added by Max2004 (talk

As a preliminary note, here is yet another astronomy encyclopedia containing the term: CNNfan http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/CNNfan comment added by Max2004 (talk

  • Nope, all 3 are mirrors of the deleted article. We don't use wikis as reliable sources and you are effectively trying to use the deleted wikipedia article as a source for its self. That's not how it works. Try old fashioned print instead of just googling the term. Spartaz Humbug! 20:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are five dictionaries and encyclopedias not three, and there are more than this. The claim of Neologism clearly states "any" dictionary, so that IS the way you do it by your own definition in old fashioned writing. The fact that as you claim it has been 'mirrored' proves the article is not in a state of confusion and disorderliness, and is therefore not a "mess". Quote Wikipedia: "Neologisms are words and terms that have recently been coined, generally do not appear in any dictionary,". Your comment about using a deletion as a source makes no sense at all. Wikipedia can only claim credit for definitions on its own site, not other reference sites. If you require use of the CNNfan defintion to state your case, then your deletion is invalid, and must be reversed. comment added by Max2004 (talk

  • A dictionary in that context is the OED, Webster's or something of that quality. These on-line dictionaries are all mirrors of the deleted wikipedia article and don't count. You can disagree as much as you like but that is the policy and unless you come up with multiple non-trivial secondary sources per WP:RS you will not establish the notability to have the article undeleted. Sorry, but that is simply how we do stuff. Spartaz Humbug! 21:22, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your definition of Mirror is absolutely defective and disagrees with Wikipedia itself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_(computing) . Those sites are not exact copies or they would be deleted too. They are in fact not mirrors. The problem is that your deletion of the defintion of CNNfan is invalid. The definition of CNNfan is notable, it known to millions of people, and is accepted worldwide. There is no possible way to deny that. Wikipedia is a wiki, and you are saying wikis are not reliable. It seems Universities agree with you and have banned quoting Wikipedia in college papers, which in my opinion is due to volunteers like you who have nothing to do on Christmas Eve but vandalize articles. comment added by Max2004 (talk —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.89.129.106 (talk) 21:39, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is getting absurd and circular. Don't make personal attacks. If you want to write an article, do so from reliable sources and don't spend your time parsing definitions or rehashing complaints about wikipedia. Protonk (talk) 21:42, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deleted by whom? These other sites scrape a version of wikipedia off our servers and republish it with advertising links. The resulting site is not a reliable source. They are not affiliated with wikipedia and we do not control their content. WP:MIRROR is a specific use of the term that reflects this usage. Now, this discussion is becoming tedious. You do not understand our policies or are deliberately not understanding them. I have told you the terms under which I will reconsider the deletion. They are simple to follow if you just read the policies and guidelines I linked earlier. Wikipedia strives to be an credible encyclopaedia not a repository of crap - that means we have inclusion criteria and if you don't meet them you get deleted. I do not intend to respond to you again unless you actually come up with some proper sources that meet RS. If you disagree you can appeal to WP:DRV but, I assure you, your arguments will carry no weight whatsoever without reference to multiple non-trivial reliable secondary sources to demonstrate sufficient notability to meet our inclusion criteria. Spartaz Humbug! 21:49, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Protonk, I consider the use of |Humbug!] a personal attack when responding to my complaint about a Christmas Eve deletion. Max2004 (talk —Preceding undated comment was added at 22:00, 8 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Google Dictionary is not a reliable source? I know it is, and I disagree with you. And you are complaining about England publishing it on encyclo.co.uk ? I disagree with you. This discussion is not getting tedious for me. I understand that you are completely wrong about deleting the definition of CNNfan. I did not ask for your representation on appeal. I am asking you to reverse your deletion because it is wrong. Max2004 (talk —Preceding undated comment was added at 22:09, 8 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]

  • Max2004, it seems that Spartaz is not willing to reverse his decision; having taken a look at the deleted page myself and reading the above comments, I'd have to agree with him and don't see any better way to explain the deletion to you. If you would like to continue contesting the deletion, I would recommend you take it up with the community at deletion review. This line of discussion appears to be only serving to frustrate the both of you, and distract you both from work you could be doing elsewhere on the project. If you're not comfortable asking for a public review, I'd respectfully recommend you drop the subject and move on. Hersfold (t/a/c) 22:20, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very calmly, for the purpose of the appeal, I must define here that ROTFLMGDAO posted by Spartaz is an abbreviation for "Rolling On The Floor Laughing My God Damn Ass Off." which I find very offensive. This fits the pattern of being offensive to religion, like the Christmas Eve Deletion, followed by Humbug! and now an abbreviation containing "God Damn." For the record, I don't find this funny. Please don't interpret this as a threat. This is just a very serious matter. Unless this is resolved, I may contact my attourney for representation in the appeal. Please provide Wikipedia's policy for reimbursing its users for reasonable legal fees when an admistrator is found to be wrong. This article has been deleted, then approved and then deleted again after being published for enough time for it to be published several times. Something is very wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Max2004 (talk • contribs) 00:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the purpose of appeal, again, the definition of CNNfan is notably published on answers.com : http://www.answers.com/topic/cnnfan (Max2004 (talk) 01:31, 9 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]

(Max2004 (talk) 01:38, 9 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]

He's been indefinitely blocked for legal threats. Protonk (talk) 02:46, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And for future reference, answers.com is yet another Wikipedia mirror. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 09:21, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Recreation of deleted content

Hi,

You deleted the Extreme Abuse Survey page in this AFD, but please note the creation of the Extreme abuse surveys page. Should it be re-AFDed, or can it be deleted as re-created deleted content? The page creator has no other contributions, Special:Contributions/Tn25dog, and the original contributor to the Extreme Abuse Survey page was a possible sockpuppet for the permablocked User:ResearchEditor (Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/ResearchEditor). I can't check the contributors to the original EAS page since it has been deleted. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 14:15, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • G4'd and salted both targets. Articles were the same. Spartaz Humbug! 15:12, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. After I noticed that page, I did a search for "extreme abuse survey". My results are here. Judging by the section title, I think I'm taking it personally. I suspect that ResearchEditor or one of the other editors that the RFCU looked into may be sockpuppetting. Should I contact the clerk from the first RFCU, or start a new one? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 15:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest you file a new RFCU asking for a check on any sleeper socks. The CU may decline if the accounts are all inactive but if you ask them to consider a rangeblock or blocking of an underlying ip they may be willing to look into it. I would suggest that you change the title of the page where you are detailing the facts. Has all the nonsense been reverted out of the articles affected? Spartaz Humbug! 16:48, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Aw damn, that sounds like work. I've removed all references to the EAS that I found in those 9 pages (bar the one use in the satanic ritual abuse that is actually legit). I'm mostly worried about future edits like this - ResearchEditor has proven quite willing to sockpuppet repeatedly in the past and I would suggest that these edits are further evidence of this. Thanks for the advice, I'll look into it (I'll probably paste the evidence directly into the new RFCU page without the *ahem* editorializing section title). WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 18:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
Olivia Laing also looks like re-created content; I'm not sure what the previous version looked like, but the current is kinda dubious. If it's exactly the same, wouldn't this be G4? If it's sufficiently different and better sourced, I'll consider taking it to AFD. The notability look dubious to me - sources support that she works for the guardian, that she has a blog, that she went to Brighton, and a story by 24 Hour Museum. As a deletionist, I'm dubious and of course leaning towards critical. The other two articles are basically WP:OR links to her own reviews of others' books. Would you mind having a look? G4 would save me the AFD process. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 16:29, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It was a speedy so g4 doesn't apply. This would need an AFD or a prod. Spartaz Humbug! 19:06, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Undent. Are they friggin' kidding? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 20:22, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OUTING

Hi, sorry to bother you, but I wasn't aware that "outing" was a blockable offense. If I had known, I certainly would have reported it as soon as it happened.. On one other occasion I was threatened with a slander lawsuit, after posting information readily available from the New York Post. If it's possible, could you please remove it from the history of edits at the Reid Stowe article?

Here's the information : 

14:43, 2 August 2008 64.131.181.89 (Talk) (34,118 bytes) (Aloha - what is your meatspace identification so we can go after you for slander)

Thank You Aloha27 (talk) 22:09, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am very sorry that you had to deal with this threat. I would certainly have blocked the ip had this been reported at the time but it is too late to action this now. This isn't the kind of thing we delete from article histories - the revisions I removed had what was claimed to be a users real name included in the edit summary. It really has to be something as serious as that before we can act. Sorry I can't help now, but please don't put up with nonsense like this on your own in future. You can always get fast admin support at The admin noticeboards. Best wishes Spartaz Humbug! 22:21, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OUTING

Hi, you recently warned me about Outing a user's real name. I assume you are referring to the user 'Regatta Dog'? I was not outing a user, but identifying a blogger who's material was referenced in the article. The blogger's name is Robert Leary and he blogs under the name of 'Regatta Dog'. His blog is located here: http://1000daysreality.blogspot.com Since material posted on his blog is referenced in the article, I thought it completely appropriate to identify the source of the referenced material, the blogger, and to object to the use of Self Published material in the article, this violates the guidelines on Unreliable Material. The fact that Robert chose to use the same pseudonum on Wikipedia that he blogs under can hardly be blamed on me. Robert, the blogger, is known to have a strong bias against the subject of the article, and so I'm sure this material also violates the Neutrality guidelines as well. Please explain to me how I'm supposed to know when to identify sources of material used in an article, and when not to. I thought that was one of the primary things we did here.

If you are referring to Aloha27, it is hard to "Out" someone when their name appears on their own talk page. If you're warning me about him, I assume that you've sent a similar warning to Gosgood? I'll be proceeding through the dispute resolution process in regards to the content in violation, since they appear to be engaging in edit warring, which I think is an offense too, isn't it?

Best wishes User:mdougan1000 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 02:44, 11 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Block

Are you familiar with WP:3RR policy, which sets up a 24 hours limit for blocks, while you blocked me for a week? Did your read Talk:Tsarist autocracy or made any other attempt to assess the situation with the disputed article before blocking me? DonaldDuck (talk) 07:12, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Policy is descriptive not prescriptive which means practice is not always the same as what is written down. 3RR mandates 24 hours but WP:DISRUPT allows open ended blocking. The fact is that this was your 4th block for edit warring & disruption mean that this was, in anyone's book, disruption and rightfully cost you an escalated block. You can appeal blocks with {{unblock|''your reason here''}} but I see that you did not do this.
  • You have had enough warnings I feel. If you can't learn to edit through disagreements by discussing rather then edit warring then Wikipedia is not for you as it will quickly end up with your being blocked indefinitely. This is a serious warning as the last thing any ethnic/nationalist article needs is an unreconstructed edit warrior who prefers "WAR WAR" to " JAW JAW". Spartaz Humbug! 11:49, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • First of all, this is not my 4th, but 3th block. Actually 2nd, because one of the blocks was by some crazy hypervigilant admin, who broke all the rules, and his block was reversed by other admin.
    • I have discussed my concerns with the article on Talk:Tsarist autocracy, probably you did not read it, or did not notice this discussion at all.
    • You have blocked me on request of User:Piotrus, who is himself committed edit warrior (Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus 2)
    • As I noticed, you are doing almost only admin jobs, and have little contribution to the articles in the main space. Try to write or improve some articles, maybe this will help you to see things from a different perspective.DonaldDuck (talk) 13:00, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you for telling me how to contribute to wikipedia. You can be sure that when I need advice on how to be disruptive I will make sure to call on your for further assistance. I am well aware that my contributions do not include the content creation that I would like. I'm also very concious of the risk of admin only editors losing touch with the creative community - this is why I take great care to bear that in mind when I do exercise admin functions and I am neither block happy nor hyper-vigilant. My aim is to contribute to a stress free environment for productive editors and that is what I strive to provide. In this case you were being disruptive so I took that irritant away for a week. You will also notice that I was blocked for 3RR early in my wikipedia career but unlike you I took that as a serious wake-up call and worked hard to change my approach to editing. You would do well to do similar but, if you don't, you can be sure that you only have yourself to blame when you lose your editing rights. Don't bother to reply because a) I'm not interested; b) burned out and barely active these days & c) Its clearly not going to change my mind or make me recuse from further admin actions against you if they are necessary. If you don't like that feel free to provoke some drama in a more public forum. Spartaz Humbug! 14:15, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OUTING

Look, I'm just trying to fathom the logic here. Let's look at a hypothetical case. Let's say that I edited an article on Huckleberry Finn, and in the Edit notes, I add a comment that says something to the effect of "added a reference to Hannibal Missouri, birthplace of Samuel Clemens AKA Mark Twain". Now, let's say that Sam has a Wikipedia Editor account with the user name of 'Mark Twain'. I suppose, by your rules, I've just "outed him". Now, 'Mark Twain' is a public "nom de plume" of Samuel Clemens. As an editor, I should feel safe in referencing the author's real name. I have no idea that Sam is participating on Wikipedia as editor "Mark Twain", and neither do I care. I'm referencing the author of source material that appears in an article on Wikipedia, and I'm referencing his public 'nom de plume'. If Samuel Clemens was an editor here, do you mean to tell me that I could never reference 'Samuel Clemens' and 'Mark Twain' together in the same comment or reference because I'd be "outing an editor"? If so, then the Wiki guideline of "No Outing" would seem to take precedent over academic integrity. I kind of doubt that is the true position of Wikipedia, and tend to think you are applying a rather limited interpretation of their guidelines.

Please clarify for me Wikipedia's stance on identifying the source of information referenced in an article, when that source may or may not be an editor on Wikipedia (first of all, how in the heck are we supposed to know?). If there is a clear rule, I'll try to follow it, but please use the Samuel Clemens/Mark Twain example above to illustrate Wikipedia's stance.

Very Truely Yours User:mdougan1000 (talk)

  • Wikipedia policy is quite clear. If you know the real name of another user, you keep it to yourself and don't include it in any posts or edit summaries unless the user has already put it into the public domain on wikipedia - eg revealing on their userpages or the like. You should be able to address the COI issues without actually using their name, you know something like "this is your blog isn't it?" or similar. The is no problem with raising the issue so long as you don't mention their name directly. Hopefully this will clarify the issue for you. Spartaz Humbug! 11:40, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Hi, thanks for reverting those edits on my user page, do you think you could report him? Kalajan€₣ 17:24, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review closes

When the speedy deletion was really wrong, as it was for Thomas D. Brock, I think it better for the close to say so as a lesson to the deleting administrator and to clarify the situation for those watching. that's a vital part of the purpose of deletion review. True, it was just as easy to construct a new article--as has now been done. But the close should have been to undelete to make this a matter of clearer record for anyone looking at the article. DGG (talk) 22:55, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Theoneintraining

Thought I should note, the user has evaded their block again. Perhaps another extension is in order? — neuro(talk) 13:36, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not really at this stage, a week is enough to start with if they don't continue being a pest and, if we are not careful, they will quickly end up being blocked indefinitely by escalating blocks over this, and this user doesn't quite deserve that at this moment. Spartaz Humbug! 14:30, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RE:

Yes I'm very sorry, I dodn't know it wasn't allowed. Kalajan€₣ 20:30, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage

Thanks for adding me to the AWB check page. I've just noticed that AWB requires the standard skin, which I'm not used to using. If I nominate an alternate account that can be used for AWB, could that be added to the checklist? The name of the account is User:Tasty monster, which I created a few years ago but have only ever used for tests. I've just made an edit with that account redirect its user page to my own, to confirm that I own the account. --TS 14:56, 18 January 2009 (UTC)  Done Spartaz Humbug! 16:46, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

WikiThanks
WikiThanks

Thank you for the clarification and the wonderful advice. travb (talk) 15:36, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

my right to vanish

All I want is my user page deleted, it is my right. Why isn't anyone deleting it. It's gone far enough I want to leave Wikipedia completely but not until my talk page is deleted--114.30.108.178 (talk) 16:43, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eco got his page deleted? why can't I?--114.30.108.178 (talk) 16:45, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)Because you are being annoying. If you want to vanish just vanish and then someone might do something about it. No one is going to help you until you do vanish. Spartaz Humbug! 16:52, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What do you want from me, Really.--114.30.108.178 (talk) 16:51, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What I really want you to do is to piss off from my talk page. Spartaz Humbug! 16:52, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not leaving Wikipedia until my talk page is deleted. You deleted Eco's why can't you delete mine--114.30.111.150 (talk) 16:59, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well sorry if i'm annoying but I did ask nicely to start off with but it didn't get me anywhere.--114.30.111.150 (talk) 17:01, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't delete ecos talk page. Try someone else. Spartaz Humbug! 17:10, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Robert's Coffee

Hello! This comment is a about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert's Coffee. I was a little suprised when I found out that english Wikipedia decided to delete the article, which is still in swedish and finnish Wikipedia. If I undertood correctly the article was not verified by third party sources. Still, as I live in Helsinki, Finland, I see time to time these coffee shops. According to their website [2] they have coffee shops in Finland, Sweden, Estonia, Denmark, Turkey and Singapore. The main owner, Robert Paulig [3], is a very known person in Finland for years. I also found some third party english sources [4], [5], [6] and even in a press release by Nokia [7]. So this really a semi-international chain of over 50 coffee shops. --Peltimikko (talk) 18:51, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Having 50 coffee shops isn't grounds to have an article unless there is substantial third party coverage by reliable third party sources. Mentions in tour guides doesn't count and most sites that only have a web-presence struggle to meet that standard. I didn't personally do the deletion, it was MBizanz. I only nominated the artocle based on the lack of sourcing. You probably want to speak to them but if you need better sourcing, Finnish papers, books and journals are fine as long as they meet the guidelines for sources. Spartaz Humbug! 18:56, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Demi Lovato single

I really can't believe I'm defending a Disney single article, but here I am. I can't see La La Land (Demi Lovato) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) to make sure it had its problems corrected, but WP:Articles for deletion/La La Land was closed as delete on the basis that the single had never charted. It has since reached #52 on the Billboard Hot 100, so I don't think it's automatically a repost anymore.—Kww(talk) 00:33, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • The deleted article didn't say that otherwise I wouldn't have deleted it. feel free to reverse me. New information and all that but it should probably be at the original location. Spartaz Humbug! 07:33, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Einar Riis

Hi, thanks for your help with restoring this article and your input on the DRV. At present my draft for a new article looks like this. Some parts of the original article I have been able to source, other parts I have not, and they have been removed. I think parts of the obituary written by Herman Berge are reliable, the stuff about him being a consul in Rome, and a member of the Norwegian resistance seems reliable enough. Berge was apparently a former advocate for the Riis-family, but since then he has demanded a large amount of the compensation they received and Riis' widow now considers him a traitor (a Google-translated version of that conflict is here). The Norwegian AFD nomination (which ended in a unanimous "keep") noted that Berge being behind the two Wikipedia articles as a possible problem (and I am pretty much in agreement there, and I think User:CareofRiis is Berge.)

Will continue the research. I feel I opened up a really big can of worms by bringing up this article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:29, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think you have done a bang up job of fixing that article and I can now work out exactly what it is all about. I don't personally have any objections to your simply moving the article back to mainspace. The AFD is clearly no longer relevant as its not a hoax and the sourcing is fine. I'm not the deleting admin but I did nominate the article. I am also concerned by the possibility that the article may being used to promote one version of events over another, I'll send you more details of my concerns over e-mail. I would strongly suggest you semi-protect the article for a while if you restore it and I'm certainly going to be monitoring edits to it closely. Thank you again for fixing this article and yes you did open a can worms but that's OK, we can manage it. Spartaz Humbug! 14:26, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Got your e-mail and appreciate your note. I have moved the article to mainspace and implemented a semi-protect on it for two weeks. Hope it works out. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:06, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NORC (service)

Let's erase all articles that we don't like!! It's O.K.?! I think that article it's really very notable. So try to keep it! TouLouse (talk) 19:49, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • well, do you have any sources to show that the company has been discussed in multiple independent secondary sources? Because, if you don't its not notable. That's the standard we use and that's the standard you need to meet. Spartaz Humbug! 20:21, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DonaldDuck

There is more edit warring from DonaldDuck at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_Hundred_Years_Together. Would you lend a hand?Galassi (talk) 16:31, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Salinity gradient

The talk page for this article wasn't moved, it is still at Talk:Salinity gradient where I had suggested that the article be moved to Osmotic power, but this seems to have been ignored. Charvest (talk) 06:17, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My first article

Thank you for taking the time to write me. It's exciting to be a part of the Wiki-community. I've read the material you suggested. A quick question, there are a few things I would like to add that I think are world relevant (people/places), but I'm not an expert, should I hold off on doing a page until I am, or maybe it would be acceptable to add it as a stub? I understand the need for expert fact giving and I will not adding anything that doesn't meet the wiki "reliable sources" guidelines. Again, thank you for taking the time to work with a newbe.

(Hans Schlemmer (talk) 08:45, 30 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]

  • You are extremely welcome Hans. We all start somewhere. You basically have two choices, working on the articles/stubs in userspace first to get them perfect for userspace with sources added, or just creating the stubs and seeing what happens to them. If you think the latter isn't going to upset you if the inclusion of the articles is challenged and there is a risk of deletion happening then feel free to dive into creating stubs. Sometimes its hugely satisfying to see a tiny stub grow into a decent article. On the other hand, if you want to make sure that your articles are safe, write them in your userspace first and then get someone to check them before they get moved to the encyclopaedia proper. Its really down to how you feel most comfortable working. Whatever you do, have fun and you can feel the satisfaction if your contributions going to something enormously worthwhile. I'm around most days so you always have the option to come here if you need help or advice on anything. Best of luck. Spartaz Humbug! 13:47, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Spartaz. Thanks for telling me about the "user space" option. When I write a new article this way do I put a "help" tag on it to have it reviewed? Shadowjams, a Wiki editor, recommended I read through some of the "articles for deletion log" to get a feel for what's worthy and what's not. Boy, that was an eye opener. You guys sure have your hands full. I had no idea.

Regards,

Hans Schlemmer (talk) 08:26, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • using the {{helpme}} tag is good, or feel free to drop me a link asking to look at it for you. I'm pretty deletionist so if I'm OK with the article its probably safe. Spartaz Humbug! 15:06, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

USS Liberty incident - extreme OWNERSHIP rewarded

The OWNERSHIP of this article seems to have again been endorsed, by which it is not written to consensus or agreement or RS or anything other than the FRINGE POV shovelled into it by, it would seem, only two editors. I would draw your attention to the ridiculous situation over the RS, all of which says this incident was not an accident yet the article is written to make it appear that it was an accident.
Note the determined and successful insistence on the inclusion of a quote which at least two editors consider a very obvious lie, and 3 others wanted removed. (The statement included is perilously close to a BLP as well). Last time I checked, there were at least 60 uncited statements - even tagging them draws accusations of disruption - and with 4 editors blocked just in recent weeks it's no surprise that the latest batch of honest editors have been driven off. For the 2nd time recently, filthy allegations were made against those trying to edit the article to policy - when this tactic is wielded so shamelessly to rob even dead American servicemen of recognition as victims of crime, what chance dead Palestinians? PRtalk 09:37, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sorry? What was it you wanted me to do? Admins don't rule on content disputes and if there is a BLP violation that's the first I have heard of it. I warned a disruptive user not to keep adding something against consensus that was disrupting the flow of normal editing. If you don't agree with the consensus that has emerged on the article you need to discuss it with the editors working on it, not me. I'm staying uninvolved so I can deal with the conduct - this means I can only review conduct not content. Spartaz Humbug! 13:41, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What part of this attempt at Consensus is not clear or in appropriate? How, precisely, can you determine that my finding that 7 editors are in favor of my entry, whereas 4 are opposed is NOT a satisfactory attempt to find consensus? How, exactly, do you determine that I am adding an entry without consensus when I and 6 other editors are in the majority? Note that answering these questions doesn't actually express an opinion on the article.WorldFacts (talk) 21:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • because that doesn't appear to be the consensus that is currently in play and because we weight arguments not headcount and because if no-one else is actively editing to support your position and multiple editors are editing against you then that is not consensus for your change. Spartaz Humbug! 21:54, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Finally, an intelligent response. And an unfortunate one too.
  1. "that doesn't appear to be the consensus that is currently in play" - The entry was being removed even when this consensus was in play. In fact, I was being blocked. The article was locked for a day - I would be locked out for 3 days, etc. Always in favor of the minority. Which leads me to your second point -
  2. "because we weight arguments not headcount" - That appears to directly contradict your first point. If the consensus was in favor, then it was in favor. No OTHER editor who ever wanted the entry has changed his mind. Why do they now need to reaffirm the entry. That was ALREADY DONE in the link you were provided. Yet, when the minority continued to delete it, they were never sanctioned. If I were to again, for the 100th time, make an effort to have these in favor again affirm the validity of the entry, are you THEN going to tell me that "we weight arguments not headcount". If majority doesn't decide a consensus, what does?

I think litigation is in order. This bullshit ends now.WorldFacts (talk) 23:16, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think litigation is the word you want. We need administrative enforcement to stop the ridiculous degree of OWNERSHIP at this article. PRtalk 11:02, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One to deal with under WP:RBI

Hi. If you take a look at the contribution history of Undone2121 (talk · contribs · count) it follows the pattern of sockpuppets run by Einsteindonut/the JIDF. Please could you block in line with your recommended policy at the JIDF talk page.--Peter cohen (talk) 13:54, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • toast. feel free to revert yourself. The account is now blocked. Spartaz Humbug! 14:02, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Hans was also on to this one. --Peter cohen (talk) 14:14, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thank you

My RFA passed today at 150/48/6. I wanted to thank you for weighing in, and I wanted to let you know I appreciated all of the comments, advice, criticism, and seriously took it all to heart this past week. I'll do my absolute best to not let any of you down with the incredible trust given me today. rootology (C)(T) 08:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

Hello! Could you please look at this as there appears to be an edit-war going beyond 3RR and I believe those involved know better per this and this. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 09:14, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey again

How's it going? Could I trouble you for Last Days of April? Chubbles (talk) 20:06, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks for letting me know

hi there. First i gotta say that i know that Wikipedia is not a free web-host and i know that an article deserve to exist on Wikipedia if it has reliable and notable reasons, and if you take a better look on the article you can see that it has! Thanks for letting me know that an article on a sandbox user-page can be deleted if it hasn't contributions for few months. I didn't knew that. Anyway, if you can help me with giving me a copy of article, i would thank you for doing that, even if i'd be more delighted if you'd help me to restore that article on my page, because it really has good, notable and reliable reasons to stay up. ThanksDrokstef (talk) 01:12, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I read the note you left on the talk page of User:JzB about the above-noted article; I completely agree with you, and you've expressed the policy very well. I have worked with this user on and off for quite some time around the utility of this article, and I've about reached my limit also. In one final attempt to give this user a chance to make the page into a useful contribution, I've restored the sandbox page in question for precisely 30 days and made it clear to User:Drokstef that the article must move forward in that time, either to deletion review or into mainspace. I've made a note on my calendar for March 14 that I intend to delete the page on that date, regardless. I hope you will bear with me for that time; should you have any questions or comments, I am of course at your service. Accounting4Taste:talk 01:58, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The page has now been undeleted for a short time, the user has been notified that it will be nuked again in one month; the content in question has been deleted and endorsed, the user requesting help is the lead singer of the band which is the subject of the article, and has no other contributions other than promoting the band. WP:NOTMYSPACE. Guy (Help!) 21:17, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your closure of AN/I report re JzG behavior

You closed the discussion on AN/I, [current permanent link] regarding my claim that JzG had been edit warring on Martin Fleischmann, with the comment: No violation of the 3RR has taken place. JzG hasn't used admin tools. This is a content dispute. File an article RFC if you want help with establishing a consensus on this point but admins don't dictate content decisions so this board has no locus here.

The report did not claim 3RR violation. It did not claim use of admin tools, though some mention of that came up later as part of the later topic ban proposal. The central issue taken to AN/I was edit warring. JzG removed the same content six times, spread out over two months, but hitting 3RR in the last day. Is this allowed? Please assume that he was "right" about the content. What I reported was not a content dispute, though, obviously, there exists a content dispute. I reported edit warring, and I asked for a community opinion on that. This opinion was far from clearly formed at the time of your closure, and the report was only open a short time. It appears that you believe the report was filed over a content dispute, but had JzG not repetitively reverted, if even one other editor had arrived to support his position, no report. This was classic edit warring, but simply short of 3RR violation, the bright red line (but close).

I would not have gone to AN/I over a content dispute, you are quite correct that the "board has no locus" there. I went there over a behavioral issue, not content, but many editors -- as I've seen before on AN/I -- picked up on and argued the content.

I would appreciate it if you would reopen the closure.

If not, would you point me to the next appropriate step in WP:DR over the behavioral issue or question. (I.e, my question to the community was: Is JzG's behavior as shown in the evidence allowed? Was the behavior edit warring? I did not revert JzG's last revert, because that would be edit warring, the very behavior I was reporting. If it was over the content, I'd have argued content, in depth, because that's what it takes in this field. Thanks for your attention. --Abd (talk) 20:27, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • you have been around long enough to know that we don't use admin tools/status to settle content disputes. My point is that none of your complaint raised a legitimate issue for admin attention. Get an article rfc if you dispute where the consensus on the page sits. Spartaz Humbug! 22:03, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I asked you a specific question which you did not answer, the same question which was asked by the AN/I report, whether or not edit warring is acceptable to assert a content position. The content dispute was not the issue, and even if JzG had been blocked, I'd not have reverted him again. My "dispute" here, and which I took to AN/I, was over the definition and acceptability of edit warring, not content. If the remedy I eventually proposed were implemented, it would not have "settled" the content dispute, unless, perhaps, no other editor was willing to assert JzG's position, which would say something about consensus, wouldn't it? All I can say for sure is that *I* wouldn't have reverted, and the attention brought to the article by my AN/I report, which I expected, insures that I couldn't get away with any funny business should JzG have been blocked. I asked you, then, about the next step for this dispute. About edit warring. Not about content. I know how to deal with content. I also may know how to deal with the edit warring issue, but I certainly have a lot to learn, hence my question. Thanks. Sorry for the trouble. --Abd (talk) 00:48, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, you need to write your questions in a shorter format to be easier to absorb. Big walls of text discourage people from reading closely. Spartaz Humbug! 06:27, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, the above was brief. But, to repeat: Edits start bouncing in an article, repetitive removal and replacement. four editors are involved, A, B, C, D. All are established editors. A places link in the article. B removes it, and, being an admin, blacklists the link, total removal five times, reaching 3RR in one day. C had the link whitelisted and put it in twice. D put it in twice. Was B edit warring?
He didn't breach the 3RR, only three revisions within a 24 hour period. There is a fine line between edit warring and working out various versions towards a consensus and there was discussion on the talk page. I'd say the behaviour wasn't perfect but nothing JzG did was actionable. Blacklisting the site was perhaps something that someone else should have done but we have very few admins willing to work on the blacklist and that's something that does unfortunately happen occasionally. Ideally someone else should have done the blacklisting (I haven't checked whether JzG did do this but I'm sure you are right) but this is something that can be fixed by asking for review on the blacklist talk page. There are enough admins there that if consensus is against the blacklisting then it will be removed. So, nothing really that needs ANI to look at there.
The trouble is that you have a tendency to go running to ANI whenever you get into an editing dispute and personalising disputes by highlighting minor conduct issues and not identifying the fact that admins do not, repeat do not, intervene in content disputes. Instead of trying to win by castigating your opponents, you would have more success by seeking to win the consensus by bringing in expert opinions or external eyes by asking wikiprojects and WP:3O to cast their eye over the page or discussion.
As I said earlier enormous blocks of text are not going to get read properly. If you can't describe the problem in 100 words or so may I suggest that you don't bother because the issue clearly isn't simple enough to be an obvious violation requiring immediate admin attention. ANI is not part of WP:DR so you need to look there for your next steps not ANI.
I do realise that you are a good faith editor but, honestly speaking, you need to give ANI and blaming your opponents a rest and look at finding ways to work collaboratively to win consensus to your position. Shorter comments are inevitably going to strengthen your arguments because right now hardly anyone has the patience to read through your text to understand the actual issue you are arguing for. This inevitably weakens your arguments. Spartaz Humbug! 16:58, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unaware that I "have a tendency to go running to ANI," could you give examples? No request was made to intervene in a content dispute. A request was made to examine editorial behavior, and content was irrelevant. There was immediate edit warring -- not 4RR, but only up to 3RR in one day, 5RR total -- and it continued during the AN/I report, and that issue was not addressed by your close, nor here. So, suit yourself. If you aren't willing to read more than 100 words, your problem. It's only mine if I'm trying to convince you, not adequately inform you so that you can make your own responsible decision. I DGAF. Honestly, how many times have I gone to AN/I with anything like a content dispute? It's hard for me to remember any other examples. So, Spartaz, you can continue making false statements if you don't care, and refuting a false statement often takes more words than the statement itself. Your description above of the actual edits in context is radically incorrect, there was no attempt to work out alternate versions, for example, most of the removals were without Talk at all. Are we done here? --Abd (talk) 20:20, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And that's exactly what I'm talking about. Spartaz Humbug! 21:48, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I assume this means we are done, that this attempt to resolve a dispute by direct discussion has failed. Right? Wrong? --Abd (talk) 21:52, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alternatively, I could come with one subquestion, a small issue, I could do that with great brevity, perhaps this would suit your style better. Then the next one, until the whole issue is resolved or disagreement is clear. --Abd (talk) 22:04, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Once you attacked my motivations I lost interest in this conversation. Go and bother someone else.

Smile!

A NobodyMy talk has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend, Go on smile! Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/RMHED

Would you please restore that page immediately? Firstly the user is not indefinitely blocked and secondly this deletion is abusive. — Aitias // discussion 07:26, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. Let it go. Right now. I assure you, Spartaz did exactly the right thing here.--Tznkai (talk) 07:29, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No. The RFC was abusive. Your actions in opening an RFC on RMHED are reprehensible and a disgrace. Personally I dislike RHMED intensely, their bullying contributed to my leaving the project for a while and I haven't been properly active since but even through that lens its obvious that this is no more then kicking a man while he is down. So, take it to ANI and/or DRV and get a consensus to restore it. Spartaz Humbug! 07:30, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well done, Spartaz. --MZMcBride (talk) 08:05, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you as well Spartaz. Don't kick a vested editor while he's down. seicer | talk | contribs 19:09, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request

Hi there. Could I possibly trouble you for BrokeNCYDE? (There was also an article at Brokencyde, but I think the former had the most information, though i could be wrong.) Not sure if I'll be restoring right away but it'll need to be done eventually; still looking into it. Chubbles (talk) 21:50, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

Thanks for the speedy closure, but can we do something about Ikip's HOUNDing of me? That remains unresolved. Discussion at WP:WQA. THF (talk) 16:48, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Attack Attack! unsalt

Hello... just curious, why did you unsalt Attack Attack!? The page has been repeatedly recreated despite deletion, and the subject has not yet demonstrated notability. (Just curious.) --Ckatzchatspy 21:05, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Its up at DRV and Chubbles says its now charted. I tend to trust their judgement on musuic articles so I unsalted to allow them to have a go at the new article. I'm not bothered if you prefer to resalt and wait for the DRV to close. Spartaz Humbug! 21:10, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the quick reply. No problem, just had it on my watchlist so I thought I'd check. If there are valid sources that actually move it toward inclusion, that's great. Thanks again. --Ckatzchatspy 21:19, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion Review of: Pier Solar and the Great Architects

Closing the deletion review of Pier Solar and the Great Architects is rushed IMHO. Mind, such discussions are supposed to be kept open for at least five days by wikipedia standards. Deletion Review is to be used if 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. Now: My statement was that significant new information and sources as well as proof for the games existence has surfaced which does indeed justify an un-deltetion according to wikipedia guidelines. But this was just ignored. Don't tell me that coverage by magazines with over 50,000 copies a month are not noticeable. What about http://eidolons-inn.net/ as a source (Pier Solar started there)? Or sega-16.com - one of the more reliable Sega retrogaming related sites. Due to the media coverage it got, both in print media and online media the game is noteworthy, even if it is a hoax or not. If it turns out to be a hoax, then people should be able to find out about it on wikipedia. If it is for real, which all sources seem to suggest, then it shouldn't be missing in wikipedia either. I kindly ask you hereby to reopen the deletion review for Pier Solar. How about undeleting it and proposing it for deletion, so a consensus can be reached on the Pier Solar talk page? PabloGS (talk) 01:07, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • guess what, we don't allow DRV to be used as a platform to attack other users. If you open up a review based on attacking another user then you lose it. Simple. Discuss content not the motives or opinions of the users. Now, if you want to start a new review that simply discusses reasons for undeletion and does not in any way misrepresent or bad mouth the motives or actions or another user then you are free to do so and can reference this discussion if you need to show I agreed to it. Before you do anything though, read WP:RS, WP:N and WP:WEB since we are strict about notability and sourcing at DRV and unless you can provide specific detailed reliable sources then its a waste of your time as well as ours to list it. Spartaz Humbug! 07:30, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Del. review

Deletion review for Mitch Ratcliffe

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Mitch Ratcliffe. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedy-deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Davodd (talk) 07:46, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


AbsoluteTelnet AFD

Hi. I was wondering why you tagged AbsoluteTelnet for deletion immediately after closing the DRV? You cite it as a 'procedural nomination', but I don't see any reference to what procedure you're following. Perhaps I just haven't looked in the right place? I'm wondering if it might not be appropriate to tag it as 'needs improvement' and begin the discussion regarding its sources on the discussion page.--Brian Pence (talk) 21:38, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • the outcome of the discussion was to refer the article back to afd to discuss the sources. generally drv tries to avoid substituting their view of notability over that of afd so its normal uif there is doubt about the sourcing to ask the community to rediscuss it. Spartaz Humbug! 23:17, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I thought the outcome of the DRV was to relist. Obviously, discussion should continue on the discussion page, along with additional updates and additions of the new sources. I didn't realize that you have to go from DRV straight back to AFD. Is that the usual process? Is it documented anywhere? --Brian Pence (talk) 01:41, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • 'RElist means relist at AFD. Spartaz Humbug! 08:45, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Principality of Stavelot-Malmedy

I would like to know why this article has been deleted. I understand it could be because this article has beenc reated by a banned user. Nevertheless I think one could keep it, this principality has really existed, which means it has a story and is thus worth an article as it is the case e.g. on wikipedia (fr). --Lebob-BE (talk) 08:09, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please go ahead and recreate it. We generally remove all traces of editing from banned users. This isn't a reflection on the content but the contribution. Any good faith editor is welcome to recreate any deleted article. Since it was a one line stub that shouldn't be difficult. Spartaz Humbug! 08:50, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: ANI

I just meant to post it at the bottom - the indentation types don't really match, I didn't realize it would be taken as a response to yours. Feel free to rearrange the indentation I guess. --Random832 (contribs) 16:43, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Spartaz/Archive9&oldid=282371780"