User talk:Lord Roem/Archives/2023/January

Paddykumar TBAN[edit]

Hello milord. Paddykumar violated their TBAN soon after you enacted it it (diff). Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 23:16, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Firefangledfeathers Thanks for flagging. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 04:30, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the action. You hate to see it. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:32, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AE referral to the Arbitration Committee[edit]

You are involved in a recently-filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Amendment request: Armenia-Azerbaijan_2 and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Wikipedia:Arbitration guide may be of use.

Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:40, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – January 2023[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2022).

Administrator changes

Stephen

Interface administrator changes

Nihiltres

CheckUser changes

Moneytrees

Oversighter changes

Guideline and policy news

Speedy deletion criterion A5 (transwikied articles) has been repealed following an unopposed proposal.

Arbitration

Following the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee: Barkeep49, CaptainEek, GeneralNotability, Guerillero, L235, Moneytrees, Primefac, SilkTork.
The 2021-22 Discretionary Sanctions Review has concluded with many changes to the discretionary sanctions procedure including a change of the name to "contentious topics". The changes are being implemented over the coming month.
The arbitration case Stephen has been closed.

Miscellaneous

Voting for the Sound Logo has closed and the winner is expected to be announced February to April 2023.
Tech tip: You can view information about IP addresses in a centralised location using bullseye which won the Newcomer award in the recent Coolest Tool Awards.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:09, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello![edit]

Hi, Lord Roem,

I don't think we've ever crossed paths in the past but I am seeing you a lot at AFD these days so I thought I'd say hello. I started editing Wikipedia as a registered editor in 2013 and went through a rather arduous RFA to become an admin in 2015. I also worked as an arbitration clerk for a few years when I was a newer editor which I saw you did as well so maybe there was a period of time where we overlapped there.

I only started closing deletion discussions about a year ago so I still consider myself a relative newbie compared to admins who have been doing admin work at AFD for years. I've agreed with all of your closures I've come across so maybe we have like minds! Any way, let me know if you ever need a hand or a second opinion. See you later on the daily AFD log page! And I hope 2023 is a healthy and happy year for you and yours! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:59, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Liz, so nice to meet you! Thanks so much for stopping by and for the nice words. I'd hardly call myself a veteran, but I guess it's been... gosh, 12 years! Definitely doesn't feel like it.

All the best for the new year as well! Lord Roem ~ (talk) 05:43, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Articles for deletion/Ike Awgu (3rd nomination)[edit]

I don't agree with your close at WP:Articles for deletion/Ike Awgu (3rd nomination). I seem to be criticized for not responding to an IP that surely should have virtually no weight, given that their comment was their sixth edit ever - and their previous editing history seems to be confined to this AFD. And rather non-sensical, given that it claims that the Globe and Mail - Canada's primary national newspaper - is local. Local not actually being mentioned in WP:GNG. And really - the Ottawa Citizen local? It's the national capital with over a million people - not a small town. Please relist. Nfitz (talk) 20:37, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Nfitz Hey there, thanks for reaching out. I don't disagree that the Globe and Mail article is a good argument, probably the strongest in favor of retention, but I ultimately felt the consensus, as judged through the lens of policy (GNG, BLP, NPOL), went the other way. You're welcome to bring this to WP:Deletion Review if you feel otherwise, or wait a month or so and request undeletion. Best, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 20:52, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I need to go back to WP:REFBOMBing, WP:BLUDGEONing, and WP:WABBITSEASON. It sees to be more effective than simply stating facts, providing references, and expecting the AFD process to reach a reasonable conclusion! Nfitz (talk) 23:15, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your close[edit]

I disagree with your close on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of compositions for viola: A to B (2nd nomination) (but I don't think another deletion review would be productive). Namely, whenever you say "simple mentions of policy". It's one thing to say "fails yadda-yadda" and not explain why, but when something is vehemently WP:INDISCRIMINATE then simply saying such is enough. I also disagree that citing WP:NLIST should have any merit when we already have a page on Wikipedia about this exact topic (really it's just a semantics game between "repertoire" and "list of compositions"), meaning that this page should only be held accountable by the content, not its subject. And the content fails WP:NOT; I feel you can discount a couple votes that said it had selection criteria (of which there is none). Like I said, I'm not taking it to deletion review because it still is a reasonable close, but I still disagree with it where you give too much weight to keep votes that make no sense. Why? I Ask (talk) 17:36, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Why? I Ask Hey there, thanks for swinging by. I think much of your analysis is correct, and I think you have fairly strong arguments here. I personally would lean Delete if I were participating in the discussion. That said, several of the Keep !votes had what I felt were direct rebuttals to your position that resulted in a split decision, and I do feel like I afforded them appropriate weight. It's not for me to impose my supervote if the community is divided. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 17:51, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, I understand that it's tough closing deletion reviews, and I appreciate the sincere closing reply. It's just that I would not have given those rebuttals much weight when they're (in my opinion) wrong. It's good to engage in debates, but sometimes the opposing view is just plain wrong when looking at all of Wikipedia's guidelines and policies (and as an admin, you would have good knowledge of them). There were a few keep votes that I felt didn't even read my nomination! Why? I Ask (talk) 17:59, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Adventures of Mabel[edit]

Hi Lord Loem. I edit conflicted with your close when I tried to add this comment to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Adventures of Mabel:

Extended content

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria says:
A book is presumed notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:
1. The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.
1. "The Adventures of Mabel". The Bookman. Vol. 53, no. 315. December 1917. p. 121. ISSN 2043-1503. ProQuest 3212704.
  The article was published in 1917, so it is in the public domain.
  The article notes: "By Harry Thurston Peck. Illustrated in colour and black-and-white by Harry Rountree. (Harrap.) For any youngster who has never read "The Adventures of Mabel," here is a chance of reading them that ought not to be missed. It is one of those fascinating tales for children that strikes exactly the right note at the start—"Once upon a time there was a little girl named Mabel, who lived in a cottage with her grandma, and her brother Walter, and Jane the cook"—and keeps it up most alluringly right to the last line when you have forty men shouting: "Hurrah! Hurrah! Hurrah! Mabel!" There was the best of reasons for their enthusiasm, for it comes at the close of one of the most exciting episodes in the book. Mabel plays a part in all twelve of these stories, but Walter shares in her adventures, so does Towser the dog and Rex the horse, the Goat and the Grey Rat, Kitty-Cat, the little Pig, and others. The word delightful has been used in describing so many books that it is getting a little worn, but it is the one word that really does describe the book. "The Adventures of Mabel" are delightful adventures and the illustrations of Harry Rountree add to the delight of reading about them."
2. "The Adventures of Mabel". The Evangelist. Vol. 68, no. 47. Harper & Brothers. 1897-11-25. p. 27. Retrieved 2023-01-22 – via Internet Archive.
  The article was published in 1897, so it is in the public domain.
  The article notes: "The Adventures of Mabel are charmingly related by Rafford Pyke and have evidently been told first to interest the little "Constance," to whom they are dedicated in its more permanent form. Mabel, the six-year-old heroine while gathering strawberries in the woods, finds a green lizard with his tail caught under a stone, and goes to his rescue. He proves to be the King of all the Lizards, and to show gratitude to his kind deliverer, he teaches her to understand "animal talk," and to make them understand her, and also to whistle a little call that will make all animals good to her. Armed with this secret talisman, Mabel goes about winning friends among the dumb creatures. Even a hungry wolf, a wild horse, and a cruel giant yield instant submission to her gentle sway, and the little readers cannot fail to gain through her eyes and ears a new sympathy with dumb creatures, and to learn that kindness and unselfishness can work miracles. The book is beautifully printed by the University Press at Cambridge, on antique paper, and the many quaint illustrations by Melanie Elizabeth Norton are most original and amusing. (Dodd, Mead and Company, New York $1.75.)"
3. "Other Books for the Young". The Critic. Vol. 28, no. 825. 1897-12-11. p. 363. Retrieved 2023-01-22 – via Internet Archive.
  The article was published in 1897, so it is in the public domain.
  The article notes: "There is plenty of work cut out for the infantile imagination in "The Adventures of Mabel," by Rafford Pyke, and more in the illustrations, by Mélanie Elisabeth Norton. Mabel has quite an assortment of animal enemies and friends who helped her into and out of difficulties, and a careful and matter-of-fact Grandma, who laughs at her stories and tells her that she is certainly a very original little girl. The Grandma is really the more original of the two; for, if Mabel whistles, she has been taught by a lizard; if she is not afraid to be out late, it is because the wolf sees her home; when she fastens their crime upon the two robbers, who cry Ha! at their work, it is because Rex, her horse, has informed her of their doings. The pictures are in black, white and gray. (Dodd, Mead & Co.)
4. "Children's Books". The Nation. Vol. 75, no. 1690. 1897-11-18. p. 401. Retrieved 2023-01-22 – via Internet Archive.
  The article was published in 1897, so it is in the public domain.
  The article notes: "'The Adventures of Mabel,' by Rafford Pyke (Dodd, Mead & Co.), inspires a degree of respect by its beautiful type and paper, and by its simply expressed pictures, for which three values have sufficed; but when one comes to read the story, indifference or disapproval arises. Some will stop at indifference when they find positive merit lacking, and think us over-critical to object to a childish heroine who, thanks to a fairy gift, tames a fierce wolf in the forest and a wildly unmanageable horse, who takes the lead in a piece of defective work, and copes single-handed with a monstrous giant of the old-fashioned child-devouring kind; and, in consequence of these and like actions, often hears her grandmother says, "You are a very wonderful little girl"—a judgment she accepts without disclaimer. Such incidents, to be sure, may be told in a harmless burlesque way, but unless better guarded than in this instance nothing would be more likely to foster conceit."
5. Less significant coverage:
  1. Reed, Helen Leah (1900-12-08). "Books for Children. Twenty of the Best Among Recent Ones". The New York Times Saturday Review of Books. Retrieved 2023-01-22 – via Internet Archive.
    The article was published in 1900, so it is in the public domain.
    The article notes: "For the very littlest ones, the readers under ten, I may name as the best of all "The Adventures of Mabel," (Dodd, Mead & Co.) Although issued anonymously two or three years ago, as it now first appears with the name of its author, Prof. H. T. Peck, it is practically new. The adventures of Mabel are with animals, spiders, giants, and other creatures dear to the heart of children. The thought is clear, and the language suited to the thought."
  2. Winthrop, Robert C. (1897-10-21). "Book Reviews". The Congregationalist and Herald of Gospel Liberty. pp. 577–578. Retrieved 2023-01-22 – via Internet Archive.
    The article was published in 1897, so it is in the public domain.
    The article notes: "From Dodd, Mead & Co. come The Adventures of Mabel ($1.75) by Rafford Pyke, with original and striking illustrations in black and white by Mélanie E. Norton. The book deals largely with animals of all sorts and its stories are thrilling and delightful. They will fascinate the younger boys and girls. The pictures and binding also are original and effective. It will be one of the most popular juvenile books of the season, we have no doubt."
  3. "New Books for the Young". The Independent. Vol. 49, no. 2558. 1897-12-09. p. 23. Retrieved 2023-01-22 – via Internet Archive.
    The article was published in 1897, so it is in the public domain.
    The article notes: "The Adventures of Mabel. By Rafford Pyke. (Dodd, Mead & Co. $1.75.) This is a beautiful book in every respect, strikingly illustrated by Mélanie Elisabeth Norton, and written to engage the interest of children. It is a book well suited to the Christmas gift-box."
  4. "The Adventures of Mabel". Publishers Weekly. Vol. 52, no. 16. 1897-10-16. p. 640. Retrieved 2023-01-22 – via Internet Archive.
    The article was published in 1897, so it is in the public domain.
    The article notes: "Mabel, who was about six years old, went into the woods one day to gather strawberries; hearing a queer little sound, as if some one was in pain, she looked about her and found a little green lizard fastened to the ground by a big stone that had fallen on its tail. Mabel releases the lizard, who in turn teaches her to understand animal talk, and how to make animals understand her when she talks, and also how to make animals good to her. The result is many odd adventures, in which animals figure.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow The Adventures of Mabel to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 01:03, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Would you relist the AfD? Thank you, Cunard (talk) 01:03, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Cunard That's a fair request, especially given the AfD hasn't been relisted yet. I've reversed the close and relisted so you have an opportunity to make your argument. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 01:09, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Cunard (talk) 01:09, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Adminship Anniversary![edit]

Arbitration case Armenia-Azerbaijan 3 opened[edit]

Hello Lord Roem,

You had recently been mentioned in a request for arbitration (without being a party to the case). The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Armenia-Azerbaijan 3. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Armenia-Azerbaijan 3/Evidence. If you would like to add evidence to the case, please add your evidence by February 10, 2023, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Armenia-Azerbaijan 3/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.

Best regards, ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:08, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]