User talk:Spartaz

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

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

What again?

I have contributed to Wikipedia since 2006 and have been an admin since the middle of 2007 with a couple of long breaks due to on and off-wiki stress. Historically I have worked mostly on deletion discussions and at one time was one of the most prolific AFD closers. From November 2012 to early 2014 I closed most DRVs but am no longer very active there. I am a strong proponent of applying the GNG to article content - especially for BLPs.

I am mostly inactive now. If you have a question or a request don't be surprised if there is a delay for an answer. I have no problems with you asking another admin on my behalf.

Useful Links:

please stay in the top three tiers

User:Vahvistus/Socialist Alternative (Malaysia)[edit]

You were the deciding editor when this article was deleted. I have since found a couple of independent references to establish notability. Will you let it in. Vahvistus (talk) 18:05, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

  • what are the sources? Spartaz Humbug! 21:44, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
I reviewed most of the sources on the Help Desk. Or rather, listed the ones that didn't mention the group at all. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:54, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
thank you for that. On that basis, I think the answer has to be no. Perhaps, Vahvistus should consider comparing their sources with those used in mainstream political articles and retread WP:GNG - that might help clarify what we mean by reliable sources. Spartaz Humbug! 22:04, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

The additional sources are : — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vahvistus (talkcontribs) 22:51, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Dear Spartaz I have had another go at editing an article on Socialist Alternative (Malaysia). I have noted the point made by @Ian.thomson: and added the synonym CWI Malaysia to the article. The Encyclopaedia of Trotskyism On Line has updated its entry to show Socialist Alternative and Sosialis Alternatif. There are two other sources that are completely independent of anything socialist. The KL Review, an on-line magazine and Roketkini a website of the Democratic Action Party which is the largest opposition party in the Malaysian parliament. Please have a look and consider allowing it. The latest version is in my sandbox. User:Vahvistus/sandboxVahvistus (talk) 17:34, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Am I right that this is your suggestion of a reliable source for notability? Spartaz Humbug! 21:08, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
    • KL review is a primary source (interview) and the site (gmail and facebook contacts) doesn't look professional enough to have the necessary level of fact checking and/pr peer review. Spartaz Humbug! 21:23, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

The Dark Tower series film adaptation[edit]

Hi again. Thank you for letting me work on that deleted article again. I now was able to bring it to a much better state, I think. Instructions at Wikipedia:Deletion review state I should bring this up with you as the one who originally deleted the article, to see if it can be reinstated quicker. I feel it's a much better article right now than it was in 2011. A lot of time has passed since it was deleted, and many different things have happened with the project that the article describes. As I wrote to you before, this article does fall within the Wikipedia:Planned films policy. Also, it's not so much about a film as the ongoing process to bring that film to fruition. If the project does materialize in the future, the article could then be simply transformed into the general background section of the main film or series article. But I feel strongly that this is a very interesting saga that has gone on now for eight years and it deserves to be chronicled as a piece of Stephen King and film history. And it's been extensively covered in media by numerous sources, which I've liberally referenced. I hope you can take a look and agree to put the article back up into the mainspace. Thanks! Jmj713 (talk) 16:24, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Wondering if you've had a chance to take a look yet. Jmj713 (talk) 13:20, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm getting a bit confused by all the added links, which two links you added most closely meet the GNG? WP:NFILM suggests this goes back up when actual filming starts. Do you not agree with that policy?MichaelQSchmidt can you help with this? Spartaz Humbug! 21:13, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Well Spartaz, WP:NFF is a guideline which allows the common sense occasional exceptions allowed under policy when the topic being spoken of exceeds WP:GNG, and contains so much properly sourced information that the possible merge target would be over-whelmed. As a guideline it is not the more impervious standard of a policy, and we do have and do allow articles on unmade future films. The questions to consider are: 1) does the topic exceed WP:GNG and 2) could the section at The Dark Tower (series)#Filmed adaptation contain the information without being overwhelemed. Looking it over, I'm inclined to agree that this could be returned to mainspace as a discussion of a possible future film IF the citation formats are brought into line. Schmidt, Michael Q. 05:04, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Regarding Akhtar Raza Khan[edit]

Hello mr.Spartaz as I saw that the article with name Akhtar Raza Khan has been deleted because of copyright problem.I think someone who dont have any knowledge of the rules on wikipedia would have created that.

Now, I decided to creat the article again abiding by the rules and laws.But it says only an administrator can creat it.Therefore I am requesting you to please restore the article I will improve that article.I will take out the contents which violates copyright rules. Or you may simply creat a new article with that name with a few lines I will thereafter improve that adding more words and sources...

It will be your kind favour on me If you accept my request.

Thanking you for reading my request.

Ejaz92 (talk) 11:02, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

  • This last deletion and salting was by Ritchie333 Perhaps you could raise your question with him? Thanks Spartaz Humbug! 21:19, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

AfD of porn related articles[edit]

Would you mind stopping the nomination of so many porn related articles for AfD for some time? There aren't many editors who work in that particular area and to flood the system with AfDs is unfair to them. Thanks, Dismas|(talk) 09:14, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

None of the articles I have listed have struggled for participation so I'm not following your argument. Who specifically are you talking about? Spartaz Humbug! 09:17, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm talking about the members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Pornography. There are only a handful of editors listed and not all of them are especially active. There are currently 13 articles and templates in the porn category that are up for AfD according to Wikipedia:WikiProject Pornography/Deletion. And that doesn't include some of the articles that you just posted today. So, would you mind sitting back for a week or so while the current list works through the AfD system? That will give those editors some time to possibly do some research and try to save a few of those articles. Thanks, Dismas|(talk) 09:26, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Wikiprojects do not have a right to participate in AfDs of articles in their subject area, you do not own the articles. Tarc (talk) 12:59, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Well, if it hadn't become nearly impossible to use the WP:PROD process to for what prove to be thoroughly uncontroversial deletions of non-notable porn performer bios, there wouldn't be so many taken to AFD. So long as one or two users are allowed to roadblock the PROD process because they don't accept PORNBIO and the GNG, there's going to be more porn AFDs than there ought to be. The solution is to do something about disruptive users who deprod articles indiscriminately and without explanation, not to create further obstacles for the removal of substandard BLPs. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 15:21, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
I didn't claim that anyone owns the articles... You know what, fuck it. Just carpet bomb every article in all the porn cats. I guess this is what I get for asking for some reasonable amount of time. Dismas|(talk) 20:53, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
The problem I have is that with the exception of the listings that are there to test boundaries, I'm not sure what any delay will serve. There certainly in no precedent for wikiprojects to slow down the usual community processes and participation in my AFDs certainly appears satisfactory and reasonable consensuses appear to be emerging. . How much time as you asking for and for what purpose? I'm not going to delay simply to maintain substandard BLPs so I need to know what encyclopaedic purpose this will serve before I decide whether to agree to a pause. Spartaz Humbug! 21:17, 27 July 2015 (UTC)