User talk:Spartaz/Archive9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Any actions with the edit summary OTRS must be referred to an OTRS volunteer before being reversed


Deletion query[edit]

Hello. I just got my Greensulate page deleted, and i'm looking for real feedback on the reason and how to avoid future misconception of the guidelines for my first wikipedia page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shield349 (talk • contribs) 17:42, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Spartaz. I created a page which was deleted. 20:46, 22 August 2009 Spartaz (talk | contribs) deleted "Stephen Wayne Jamieson" ‎ (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen Wayne Jamieson). Is this the place to discuss undeletion? Anthony (talk) 19:34, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Lakshmisiddhi (talk) 17:22, 18 October 2009 (UTC)Dear Spartaz[reply]

Thank you very much for restoring the article on V.V.L.N.Sastry.

I was the originator of this article of V.V.L.N.Sastry. As a third person, I have taken utmost care in presenting a nuetral view. I have searched the NET and found more than 3500 sources, when you search the name of V.V.L.N.Sastry on Google. He is an young icon for many economically middle class persons in India. Many people like us watch him daily on TV in various shows relating to Economy and get more knowledge.

While creating this article, due to my lack of knwoledge in putting these pages across, I have done the page as I could do. But you can help us in improving this page. I donot know, how to provide references in the running text, you can also help me in doing so. There are many credible references available about V.V.L.N.Sastry on the net.

Please donot remove this article. Regards. Lakshmi SiddhiLakshmisiddhi (talk) 17:22, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A Question of Relative Morality[edit]

Which is more offensive? Comparing an editor to Hitler or calling them a cunt? Answers below if you feel like it. Spartaz Humbug! 05:23, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The former is a cultural meme for anything anyone hates, thinned out a little perhaps only by its overuse, whilst the latter is an overbearing, utter slur. They spin up into about the same level of personal attack. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:33, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby Schilling[edit]

I would like to apologize for my immature behavior through the Bobby Schilling deletion review, and I realize I didn't help my case very well. That being said, I would still like to know what exactly was wrong with the article and how it can be fixed. Please let me know when you get a chance. Thanks. NYyankees51 (talk) 01:51, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sportspages[edit]

Saw your comment at AfD. Sportpages is sadly no more. It went out of business three years ago (or in the case of the Manchester branch I frequented, four years ago) [1]. Oldelpaso (talk) 21:56, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • :-( That sucks - also shows how long I have been living outside the UK. I couldn't find the forbidden planet last time I was in London either and Murder 1 is long gone. I have no idea where to buy books in the UK these days... Spartaz Humbug! 22:21, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashida Kim (7th nomination)[edit]

Since you participated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashida Kim (6th nomination), which was closed as no consensus and later relisted after a DRV discussion, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashida Kim (7th nomination). Cunard (talk) 08:20, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment[edit]

Please comment on Zenfolio stub at my talk page. I appreciate very much. Thank you.ESCapade (talk) 13:15, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

UAA[edit]

Anything in particular? As the answer was 100% correct based on our current standards and policies. From everything on confirming how to deal with various individuals down to the specific answers, it matches exactly how such are being dealt with. The inaccurate claims put forth by Rspeer have already been refuted as oversimplifying matters that were intended to be situations that cannot be simplified. Was there some other concern? Ottava Rima (talk) 19:49, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Firstly, usernames like these don't get blocked unless they edit first and secondly, stating that they would consult other admins for very straightforward cases shows either a lack of confidence in their judgement to be an admin or that they are playing to the gallery to avoid generating opposition by appearing gung ho. In either case its not what I would be looking for if I were to offer a support. Spartaz Humbug! 19:53, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing as how the admin who created them made them to -not- be straightforward, your claims of the above are absolutely absurd. this is further compounded on the fact that iMatthew never said he would block them. These two are very problematic mistakes that make me hope that you don't ever work in UAA. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:57, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Funny enough I don't work at UAA, its far too petty for my taste but if you answer questions about UAA the most significant thing to mention is that the names don't get blocked unless they have edited except in incredibly egregious circumstances so missing that off is the big boobo. Whether or not you think the names are as straightforward as I do, insisting that you will consult someone else for the answer is still the wrong response in my book. Spartaz Humbug! 20:02, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing as how he never claimed that he would block any, the above makes absolutely no sense. You are acting as if he said all four would be blocked. That is not true at all. And admin should -always- consult with others. To claim otherwise shows an arrogance that is not acceptable for the position. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:11, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense, admins take actions without consulting anyone else all the time. That's why we have a tortuous selection process to find out if the community trusts that user to use the admin tools wisely. I see that they never said that they would block them but they also didn't specifically state that the edit first rule might apply so they didn't bone up on the policy (or at least understand it) before they made the answer. Sorry but its so fundamental to the username policy that it should be categorically commented on if you are dealing with the question. Spartaz Humbug! 20:16, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And admins are desysopped for taking such action. You are promoting arrogance and recklessness. You statement goes against everything Wikipedia stands for. If it ever came up that you were in an election that trust matters, I hope people see the above claim by you so there will be a massive oppose over such disrespect for ethical standards. It is -never- a problem to consult with other admin. Suggesting the contrary is so ridiculously absurd, there are no words for it. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:22, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I already had my election thanks and I don't think my position on this is significantly away from the mainstream. I think you are making way too much about this. I'm allowed to have a different opinion then you and that doesn't make me either dangerous or arrogant. Spartaz Humbug! 20:42, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Opposing users because they consult with others is one of the worse kinds of things you can do. It is directly contradictory to our admin philosophy and goes against the ideas of consensus and agreement. Admin are supposed to work together, not as individuals. You are not in the mainstream, and I was not the only one to tell you that. Your pushing of a dangerous point of view is disruptive. If you are unwilling to acknowledge that administrators are not supposed to act as individuals who refuse to discuss matters with others, then you cannot be trusted as one. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:23, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Izzedine unblock request[edit]

Hey Spartaz, User:Izzedine, whose unblock request you declined, has just posted a third tl;dr unblock request. I see that in the past (Aug 4) he did the same thing and had his talkpage locked for the duration of the block; do you think that is appropriate here? I would do it myself, but I'm the one who blocked him and I don't want to invite accusations of Wikipedia admins sweeping things under the rug. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 19:06, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moved comment[edit]

I moved your comment to Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/A_Nobody#Comment_on_various_proposals_from_Casliber. Hope I wasn't stepping on toes, but this RfC will get much more complicated if we get into the practice of adding an "oppose" section alongside endorsements. Protonk (talk) 16:10, 22 September 2009 (UTC) np Spartaz Humbug! 17:01, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request for undeletion of an article whose AfD you closed[edit]

Yo Spartaz, just a heads-up that there is a request for the undeletion of Law Society (University College Dublin), whose AfD you closed, here.  Skomorokh  19:20, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Lakshmisiddhi (talk) 17:24, 18 October 2009 (UTC)Dear Spartaz[reply]

Thank you very much for restoring the article on V.V.L.N.Sastry.

I was the originator of this article of V.V.L.N.Sastry. As a third person, I have taken utmost care in presenting a nuetral view. I have searched the NET and found more than 3500 sources, when you search the name of V.V.L.N.Sastry on Google. He is an young icon for many economically middle class persons in India. Many people like us watch him daily on TV in various shows relating to Economy and get more knowledge.

While creating this article, due to my lack of knwoledge in putting these pages across, I have done the page as I could do. But you can help us in improving this page. I donot know, how to provide references in the running text, you can also help me in doing so. There are many credible references available about V.V.L.N.Sastry on the net.

Please donot remove this article. Regards. Lakshmi SiddhiLakshmisiddhi (talk) 17:24, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request for clarification[edit]

Regarding this closure, how does three keeps and one brief delete weigh up as "no consensus"? —Quasirandom (talk) 19:58, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Actually 2 deletes if you include the nom and one keep wasn't policy based. We weigh the arguments not count the votes and the delete argument was relatively strong. Spartaz Humbug! 03:16, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Lakshmisiddhi (talk) 17:21, 18 October 2009 (UTC)Dear Spartaz[reply]

Thank you very much for restoring the article on V.V.L.N.Sastry.

I was the originator of this article of V.V.L.N.Sastry. As a third person, I have taken utmost care in presenting a nuetral view. I have searched the NET and found more than 3500 sources, when you search the name of V.V.L.N.Sastry on Google. He is an young icon for many economically middle class persons in India. Many people like us watch him daily on TV in various shows relating to Economy and get more knowledge.

While creating this article, due to my lack of knwoledge in putting these pages across, I have done the page as I could do. But you can help us in improving this page. I donot know, how to provide references in the running text, you can also help me in doing so. There are many credible references available about V.V.L.N.Sastry on the net.

Please donot remove this article. Regards. Lakshmi SiddhiLakshmisiddhi (talk) 17:21, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

closing[edit]

please please wait the full 7 X 24 hours. Even a few hours early tend to drift, as other people go to 6, 12, etc. This is one place where it matters. This definitely does not mean I disagree in the slightest with the actual closings today., but just a friendly reminder. DGG ( talk ) 21:59, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request[edit]

Hello again...hope you're doing alright. If you have a second, could you userfy me The Beast (band)? Thanks Chubbles (talk) 23:02, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Not what I had expected... Chubbles (talk) 06:39, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request to move a protected page into my userspace for[edit]

Hi, I would kindly ask you to open for me the right to edit the page below: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/NORC_(service). It was protected by you. 9:25, 9 May 2009 Spartaz protected NORC (service) [create=sysop] (indefinite) ‎ (recreate after deletion) (hist) Because it was deleted for lack of reliable sources I would like to add them. Thanks Soapview1 (talk) 16:38, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I can give you a version in your user area to work on but because this was deleted after a discussion we dont just undelete it without seeing the sources first. Spartaz Humbug! 15:56, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jennings[edit]

Congratulations on the move. All wikibitching aside, I hope it went well and you are enjoying the new digs. Have you had chance to look at User:Cptnono/Jay Jennings? (I would be surprised if you did not) Poopeypants added a few more good sources and it looks OK. I hope it can be improved but as is it is: A BLP that meets GNG and is better than a stub. What do you think?Cptnono (talk) 12:12, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • The last time I looked at this I felt the sourcing was all tangential. Can you help me by indicating what sources have been added and I'll gladly review them. Spartaz Humbug! 15:57, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

L.A. Times, The Orange County Register, Films In Review, Beverly Hills Courier, PBS-TV, several well-known film festivals. The publications and TV stations are well-known, well-respected here in the United States. Hardcopy newspaper coverage can be e-mailed to you if needed. Cptnono, what's with the Poopeypants comment? Timemachine1967 (talk) 22:58, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it would be funny ;) (now I feel bad)Cptnono (talk) 23:11, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I also saw that you mentioned the DRV at the request Timemachine made to have the page recreated. The DRV showed that you were not incorrect to delete it and I specifically agreed with your action since you were going out of your way to do what you could to assist. The article has been updated and more importantly significant coverage has been established. Maybe there was miscommunication but you said that you had not had the chance to review the sources emailed to you due to the move. Since those were emailed, the PBS source has received an inline episode citation, additional film festivals have been referenced, and a couple good sources from the The Orange County Register (third largest paid daily circulation in California) have been included. There has also been the much needed clean up. I agree with the admin that the request for page protection would have been the correct venue instead of the recreate attempt but I personally would like to get your approval on the article. It would be appreciated if you could take a look at the article again. A little bit of cooling off has been done and the improvements you requested have been made. Cptnono (talk) 10:35, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • To be honest I can see that either the film or the director could be notable but funny enough its more likely the film is rather then Jennings himself. Since we don't have an article on the file we do need to create something - but which? I'm inclined to restore and relist the new article but i'm not sure whether to do this at DRV or another AFD. I'm unlikley to have much time today but certainly I will resolve this tomorrow at the latest. Spartaz Humbug! 10:49, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You can restore or unblock creation depending on what is easier. Either way the text to be copied in is different enough that I think a DRV would cause confusion but I am not very familiar with that process. In this situation, I think if I came across an article on that particular movie (assume you mean Loanshark) I would look into merging it into the director's article instead of the other way around just because the other work he has done accounts for some of the current coverage in the draft and Loanshark would be a stub.Cptnono (talk) 11:05, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I moved the article to mainspace and its down to other editors if they feel a further afd is required. Thank you for your patience. Spartaz Humbug! 11:52, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the follow-up.Cptnono (talk) 19:39, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'nother[edit]

Could I beggar you for Dorothy Allen? Thanks Chubbles (talk) 19:09, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


New information in regards to Phatchance article[edit]

Hi Spartaz, I did a quick search today and found some new information in regards to this article, let me know if any of these seem to constitute the extra coverage that was needed, if so I'll have a crack at reworking the article using some or all of them :)

http://1songday.blogspot.com/2009/10/premiere-phatchance-inkstains.html

http://whothehell.net/archives/6181

Stevezimmy (talk) 02:49, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Steve but blogs are not considered reliable sources for the purpose of establishing notability. Its needs to be published media or major on-line site with fact checking built into its operation. Something like NME or Guardian online, that kind of thing. Spartaz Humbug! 03:29, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I found some more stuff. He's received 'Feature Artist' on Triple J Unearthed, Triple J is the Independent National Broadcaster here in Australia, this means his single is now on rotation at the station. One of the WP:MUSIC criteria was a song on national rotation, hopefully that helps? There's also an interview attached to the feature spot. http://www.triplejunearthed.com/Artists/FeaturedArtist.aspx?artistid=1924 I also found another indepth interview, but again, it's a blog, so I assume that renders it useless? It is a pretty popular blog in our music scene, but that stuff can't be used to establish credibility, yes? Just to garner information? http://certifiedscribe.wordpress.com/2009/10/16/phatchance/ I've also found a feature article on the Home & Hosed Site (one of Triple J's primary shows) http://www.abc.net.au/triplej/homeandhosed/blog/s2719210.htm Thanks mate! Stevezimmy (talk) 06:49, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your assistance please[edit]

The record shows you deleted File:Comando Reggiment.JPG. User:Gerd 72, the contributor who uploaded this image uploaded about one hundred images of Albanian military installations or equipment, one or two at a time, over the last two and a half years. Most of the image they uploaded were deleted, in one fell swoop, about a month ago.

I looked at User:Gerd 72's talk page. I thought they offered a very credible explanation as to how they got access to that Albanian military installations and equipment.

I could see that a small minority of the images Gerd 72 uploaded were scans of previously published images. Many good faith uploaders make the mistake of thinking they possess intellectual property rights to scans of PD material. I'd like to confirm that. Would you mind taking a look at this image, and telling me if it were a scanned image, or an ordinary photo?

Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 12:13, 7 October 2009 (UTC) ~I undeleted the image for you to see. i actually deleted the thing because it was part of an article that I deleted for some reason and the image was clearly of no value outside that. Obviously you can assess for yourself if this is worth keeping or restoring. Spartaz Humbug! 12:28, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello[edit]

Hi there,

You have fairly recently deleted an article about a filmmaker called Boris Malagurski. The main reason for this seems to have been that "there are no independent, secondary sources that directly discuss this person in any detail" (quote by Yilloslime). After doing some research, I can safely say that there is more than enough independent, secondary sources that directly discuss this person in detail.

  • Literárky V Síti - An in-depth interview of Mr. Malagurski by Tereza Spencerova and Michal Stavrev for the Czech Newspaper (this is the online version) on May 30, 2009
  • Czech Free Press - Another interview of Mr. Malagurski by Tereza Spencerova on February 7, 2009
  • Bas Biber - An interview with Mr. Malagurski in the Austrian "Biber" magazine on May 14, 2009
  • Novinar - Short interview of Mr. Malagurski in the Serbian-German newspaper on May 11, 2009
  • He is a columnist for the Kisobran Newspaper (if you click on the link, you can find his name, in Cyrillic - Борис Малагурски, in almost every issue for the past couple of years)
  • He was also interviewed by the Edmonton Journal here, which caused a great controversy.[2] [3] In this article, it is also stated that Mr. Malagurski is the President of the Serbian Youth League, confirmed at the official web-site

Considering Wikipedia has articles about much less known public figures, I believe it would be a shame to not have an article about this individual (who was on television several times, interviewed by RTVP's Diaspora Live, Radio Television Serbia's Mira Adanja-Polak show, etc etc) and, considering all the links I have provided after doing the research, I would request that you bring it back, so I can add these links. Thanks, --Cinéma C 22:01, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Interviews are primary sources and self published stuff dosnt count. What were are looking for is detailed independent references by thinks like print media and books that actually talk about the subject in detail. Spartaz Humbug! 03:04, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Literárky V Síti is a printed newspaper. He's a columnist for Kisobran (where he was also interviewed), also a printed newspaper. Isn't that print media? --Cinéma C 05:16, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Writing in a newspaper doesnt make you notable even if you are a regular contributor unless someone has written about you in the newspaper. Being interviewed is a primary source not a secondary souce so normally doesn't count I'm afraid. Are these new sources though or were they available for the deletion discussion? Spartaz Humbug! 06:44, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • First of all, I'm not this person. What about all the other sources that I provided just now, where he's not interviewed, but the largest news agency of South Eastern Europe, Tanjug, wrote about him (not an interview): Source: Tanjug, or the Georgia Straight, a printed newspaper, which also mentions him (not an interview): Source: Georgia Straight? Another source, that I just found, shows that he was named the Top 30 Under 30 Serbian Young Entrepreneurs by the International Diaspora Youth Leadership Conference 2009: Link. Also, his films have been on television, as I've shown from the previous links. Do these not count? --Cinéma C 16:32, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We generally ask for detailed sources so passing mentions don't meet our notability test and being one of 30 is hardly a major award. Tell you what, if you can very briefly write up each source noting what it is from and what it says about him (a line will do per source) I'll happily relist this for you so that there can be further discussion of the sources. I'm not personally persuaded but this is something we would usually ask the community to look at in borderline cases. The reason why I'm asking you to briefly explain the sources is that although I can read Cyrillic and speak some Russian so I can guess about the content (yes I know Serbian isn't Russian) but most editors don't and it will help them to consider the source properly. Is this acceptable for you? Spartaz Humbug! 16:40, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sure thing, give me a day or two :) --Cinéma C 02:10, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just found a new link from the "Pecat" newspaper, that wrote an article about him and his film (not an interview) in their 66th edition. It's an entire page devoted to him and I'm sure this is a secondary source. Please take a look at page 60, and let me know if this is what we need to get the article back. If so, I'll translate it. --Cinéma C 19:34, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Depending on what it says, that's one. You need one more and you are done. Spartaz Humbug! 03:29, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here's one more - article about him and his new film (not an interview). Are we done? :) --Cinéma C 19:45, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If Its an online version of a print publication then we are done and I'll undelete and relist to review the sources if you can provide a very very brief précis for the non serbian speakers or cyrillic readers amongst us. (literally two lines for each source saying waht the source was and what kind of article and depth. Spartaz Humbug! 02:51, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Pečat" magazine ("Печат" in Cyrillic, meaning "stamp") has an article about Mr. Malagurski and his film (not an interview) in their 66th edition. It's an entire page devoted to him and this is a secondary source. Please take a look at page 60
Article title: Косово: Можете ли да замислите? ("Kosovo: Can You Imagine?")
Article headline: Док су надобудни великани нашег филма, којима се свет дичи када пљују по свом народу, остали потпуно глуви, слепи и пријатно имуни на проглашење независности Косова, оно мало у њему још затурених Срба, један момак, наш, али из Канаде, отишао је на „ново“ Косово, и снимио на лицу места страдања Срба. ("While our respected film legends, whom the world respects only when they spit at their own people, remained deaf, blind and immune concerning Kosovo's declaration of independence, and the little Serbs left in it, one man, ours, but from Canada, went to the "new" Kosovo and filmed the Serb tragedy on the spot.")
  • "Novinar" novine ("Novinar" meaning "journalist", "novine" meaning "newspaper") has an article about Mr. Malagurski and his film (not an interview) and the entire article is devoted to him. Please take a look at this link
Article title: Šta se stvarno desilo? ("What really happened?")
Article headline: Nakon provokativnog filma o ljudskim pravima Srba i ostalih nealbanaca na Kosovu i Metohiji, osvojenih nagrada u Kanadi i Meksiku, te više prikazivanja filma na ruskoj televiziji, srpsko-kanadski režiser i producent Boris Malagurski iz Vankuvera, autor filma “Kosovo: Možete li zamisliti?”, ušao je u kompleksnu temu umešanosti zapada u unutrašnje poslove bivših jugoslovenskih republika, nekada i danas. ("After the provocative film on the human rights of Serbs and other non-Albanians in Kosovo, received awards in Canada and Mexico, as well as several screenings on Russian television, the Serbian-Canadian director and producer Boris Malagurski from Vancouver, author of the film "Kosovo: Can You Imagine?", is dealing with the complex topic of Western involvement in the internal affairs of former Yugoslav republics then and now.")
Let me know if I need to provide anything else. All the best, --Cinéma C 04:46, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, thats cool. Im going to restore and relist now but im busy today and need to think about it for 10 mins or so, if I dont do it this evening feel free to drop me a note to remind me to do it tomorrow. Spartaz Humbug! 04:53, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not self-published Janet K. Brennan, insulted and furious[edit]

Please know that I just read your comments on my Wic article. I am not self publishsed! Casa de Snapdragon is not a vanity, or self publisher. It is a mainstream, traditional Publishing Company. Visit the site at www.casadesnapdragon.com. I am a well known author, International book reviewer and poet. I have been featured in two "Chicken Soup for the Soul Books, not to mention many, many other publications. Rodale Books, etc. Please re-read my article and check it this time!

If my article came off as "pretentious" then I do not know what to say other than to check my credentials. They are easily verifiable. Visit my own web site at www.jbstillwater.com. Amazon does sell my books, but so does Barnes and Noble , Hastings Book stores and all of the major book stores around the world. You would know this had you actually checked. I have seen many other authors on your site who ARE self published and have far fewer credentials and books to their credit than I do. What can you tell me about this?>

Santosh Kumar critically acclaimed my book, "A Dance in The Woods" He has also mentioned my name in his own wikapedia article. The book deals with the untimely death of my daughter and goes into the psychological aspects of healing while living in a small Italian village. If my life seems too incredible...then perhaps that is because...IT IS!

I am deeply disturbed by this and expect an answer or some kind of explanation. All of my books are very easily verifiable

Janet K. Brennan Author. Poet and International Book Critic

  • I have no idea what you are referring to. Please link to a page, discussion or action that I have taken so I can make sense of this. Spartaz Humbug! 03:01, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can give you a few searches that can verify that Janet's books are not only available on Amazon, but other bookstores as well (search for either Janet k. brennan or Casa de Snapdragon): http://www.barnesandnoble.com http://www.bookfinder.com http://www.powells.com do a google search for Twelve Days of Christmas Janet Brennan and you will find an original short story that was published in Chicken Soup for the Christmas Soul and was so well received that it started appearing on a quite a few sites (some of which didn't even credit Janet!)

To refer to any author published at Casa de Snapdragon Publishing as self published is not only insulting, but it may even be considered slanderous. Before using labels like self published, I refer you to the following Wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self_Published

Casa de Snapdragon Publishing bears the full cost of publication of all of our authors. compensation for our authors is done via royalties. Where is the self-published nature in that?

Arthur Brennan, Managing Editor, Casa de Snapdragon Publishing —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.230.192.96 (talk) 14:26, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please enlighten me[edit]

Sparatz:

When I traced the reason for deletion of my profile bio under "Janet K. Brennan" on Wik, I found both yours and Dragonflies comments as to why this article was deleted. Citing that I was a self published author with trivial credentials. I took issue with this as I am and have been a published author all of my life, major contributions to some very well-known publications as well as having had five of my own books published. See the article just before this one. Wik has published so many authors, some of them I know, some I do not who have far fewer writing contributions to the literary world than I do, so I am a bit confused about this.

To us it is obvious that my bio was tossed before it was even researched and then I was insulted by you saying that at best I was published in Amazon. My books are literally all over the world. And that is not too difficult to verify. Yes, CDS published my last two books, but that is my choice! I have been published by many other companies over the years, but at age 62, I have chosen to have my husbnad's publishing company (which is a traditioal publishing company, that means he does not charge for the publishing, pays in royalties and gets paid in royalties and is very, very careful aboaut which projects he gets behind.)

Now, I would ask, if forty years of publication, articles, magazines (Rodale Books, Prevention Magazine, ect, novels, etc. does not qualify me for an article on Wik, then what the heck does?

Would love some input on this.

Jb stillwater aka Janet K. Brennan —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbstillwater (talk • contribs) 17:46, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • um, I never commented on anything. I closed the discussion which was unanimous - I'm not responsible for the comments of individual users and you should take up your concerns directly with them. Spartaz Humbug! 17:50, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling bee champion article merge[edit]

Hi. Since you were the deleting admin who closed the discussion on National Spelling Bee champions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sai R. Gunturi, I’m writing to request that you review your decision to merge. The vote was 7-4 in favor of Keep rather than Merge/Delete (including votes from the nominator and you). The count may vary depending on how one treats some Comments.

You determined that the result should be Merge in spite of the majority going the other way, because you argued that keeping the articles was clearly contrary to the WP:BLP1E policy. However, you chose to keep three former champions because it was pointed out that Jody-Anne Maxwell later hosted a Jamaican quiz show, Katie Kerwin McCrimmon served as TV commenter for the bee for several years, and Jacques Bailly became the official pronouncer for the bee. Unfortunately, I think the nominator may have simply nominated every former champ without reading their individual articles. Besides the three who were kept, at least two of the deleted have multiple claims to fame. Aside from winning the bee, both Anurag Kashyap (Jeopardy and Scripps National Spelling Bee champion) and Amanda Goad also won the Jeopardy! Teen Tournament. (Goad’s high school team also won the 1995 National Academic Championship). I suppose some editors could believe those two events together don’t merit an article, but clearly those two events can’t be merged on the basis of “one event”, which was the basis for the merge decision. So I think those two articles should be restored.

I also think the others should be restored, at least pending individual deletion discussions. First of all, since other multiple event champions were overlooked, there may be other “multiple event” champs erroneously deleted as one event people. Second, I think your reading of WP:BLP1E is too broad and bee champions' biographies can be permissible under that policy. The policy is not a per se rule – it requires a specific examination. It states that a separate biography is merely “unlikely to be warranted.” But an individual with a “substantial” role in a “significant” event can merit a biography. Winners of major beauty pageants (including many state pageant winners) typically get articles even if they don’t have another claim to fame. WP:WI1E notes “one event” people who are kept such as Chesley Sullenberger and Thomas Muthee. Spelling bee champion Rebecca Sealfon garnered signficant media coverage, including an interview on Letterman (like Sullenberger) and 47,200 Google hits (as opposed to just 25,500 for “Thomas Muthee”).

Thanks for your consideration of my unfortunately lengthy arguments. --JamesAM (talk) 19:51, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sorry for the delay in responding, I got derailed writing an earlier response and I missed the fact that I didn't commit the edit. Firstly I suggest you look at WP:ND3 for advice on how we deal with challenging merge closes at AFD. I have already agreed to one article being recreated when someone demonstrated evidence of enduring notability and I'm happy to make the same offer to you. I'm more then happy to recreate if you can show me that the person is notable for more then the spelling bee but otherwise, that's exactly what BLP1E was created for. Of course, consensus can change but would would need to follow the instructions in ND3 to gather a consensus to void the AFD. Being interviewed by Letterman doesnt automaticlaly make you notable and nor do we adscribe notability by google count. Winning Teen Jeopardy may well mean the subject passed BLP1E but only if there is non-trivial reliable sourcing for the win or there is a consensus that winning Tean Jeopardy is sufficient for notability on its own. Happy to discuss further but I am comfortable that the discussion had this consensus - not least because we read consensus my measuring arguments against policy not headcount. Spartaz Humbug! 18:37, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'yes Im suggesting you open up a discussion at individual talk pages. None of the data was deleted so is in the histiry if there is a consensus to restore them. Spartaz Humbug! 02:47, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved on Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Renaming_of_outlines[edit]

You archived this as resolved citing that AN/I is not for content disputes. The subject became derailed and was not about content, but User:Verbal's actions. Please for allow further discussion, thanks -- penubag  (talk) 15:25, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • What admin action are you seeking? Admins will not and cannot adjudicate content disputes and this is a content dispute. If verbal has been revert warring then you need to report then to AN3 but ANI is not going to take sides for you. Spartaz Humbug! 15:39, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Spartaz. You have new messages at Ecoman24's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Copyright question[edit]

Hi, Spartaz I noticed you deleted an image which I uploaded. I was just wondering why a trailer released without a copyright notice between 1923–77 is not considered public domain as this is what I was to led to believe by Wikipedia copyright tags and this. Thanks. Copana2002 (talk) 22:24, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • The trailer is part of the film and the film is copyrighted. Otherwise you would have the possibility of the same image being free and non-free at the same time. So it the images or film comes from a copyrighted work its also copyrighted as a derivative work. Spartaz Humbug! 08:13, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Campfire trailer[edit]

Hi. Could you explain why you closed the discussion as "endorse close"? With a AfD/DRV with such controversy, it isn't enough to just put a couple of words with a close. You need to explain it, or you get complaints like this :) Sceptre (talk) 13:37, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I expanded my reasoning but there is no reason why you can't have your discussion on the article talk page about finding a local consensus to reverse the merge. AFD closes to merge are effectively editorial recommendations not tablets of stone, albeit backed up with by a wider discussion. Local debate can reverse that if the consensus is clear enough. I wrote an essay about that at WP:ND3 Spartaz Humbug! 15:32, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Articles for deletion/Jerry Horton[edit]

I just wanted to check whether you have read the sources related to Jerry Horton? The ones provided? The keep !votes are not based on the fact that Jerry Horton merely has talent and makes interesting comments, but that there are multiple WP:RS that demonstrate this. --Firefly322 (talk) 12:05, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • AFD isn't avote but a discussion and consensus is weighed against policy and guidelines not headcount. The first source you point to in the AFD is specifically about papa roach only and the other is really weak. When I weigh opinions I look at the policy basis and I tend not to give weight to assertions that are not backed up with specific policy based arguments so Dreamfocus' argument got discounted. Your first vote was also less policy based then the refutation and your subsequent sources aren't enough to meet independent RS and were tellingly discounted by the next voter to the discussion. I also tend to weigh more lightly votes or statements that are assuming bad faith or attaching other editors so you did yourself no favours when you attacked the motives of the other contributors and accused them for breaching 5P or wikilawyering by referring to existing guidelines and accepted practise. Spartaz Humbug! 14:52, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The whole reason for the AfD process is to discuss such issues amongst various editors and how policy does or does not apply. The method of closing here suggests to me something dangerously close to WP:wikilawyering, making the whole AFD process irrelevant. Should I just take this to review or is there any chance you'll reconsider your close? --Firefly322 (talk) 18:46, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well since you lost all chance of persuading me with your combative approach i sugegst yu try deletion review. Spartaz Humbug! 02:44, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let me quote you on me stating somehow that I am "assuming bad faith or attaching other editors". That pretty much sets the tone. --Firefly322 (talk) 03:09, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Which you were and still are. Accusing anyone of wikilawywering is an assumption of bad faith if they are simply referring to policy. Go to DRV and good luck to you. Spartaz Humbug! 03:34, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Outlines vs list problem[edit]

There's more here. -- Brangifer (talk) 14:38, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

Hi Spartaz, thanks for picking up this move for me, as I was busy trying to tidy up and understand some of the mess before I went to work this morning. Appreciated. Khukri 16:07, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • hey, no problems and its precisely for the disruption that moves like this cause that I blocked The Transhumanist. Spartaz Humbug! 16:40, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RFA spam[edit]

Thank you for participating in WP:Requests for adminship/Kww 3
Sometimes, being turned back at the door isn't such a bad thing
—Kww(talk) 18:26, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Um what?[edit]

Parties don't decide the outcome of an RfC/U. 6 opinions were expressed, not including mine; 3 were certifying parties so their opinions do not constitute final "acceptance around this close", and their talk page comments indicate issues with that close also. Beyond that, Peregrine Fisher has objected, and so have I as someone uninvolved. For you to then come along and revert with the frivolous reason "you have no right to come and change it without further discussion just because yu want to do it a different way" is grossly unacceptable. Please self revert. Finally, Beeblebrox's close is a comment or view, and I can quote Fut Perf's RfC/U as a precedent for that [4]. What can you use as precedent? That's right; there is none - your action is clouded by poor judgement. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:01, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And neither are you - the consensus did not favour that close; it came about from the motion to close. Whether you are an admin or established editor, your refusal to self-revert is unseemly and certainly not in line with consensus-based editing. Again, please self-revert before someone else reverts for you. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:39, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The close stood for two days and then you came along and changed it without seeking a new consensus on the change. Feel free to find a consensus by proposing a closing test but there was next to no activity in that talk page before you came along and arbiterily changed it. Tell you what. I'll revert myself if you them immediately revert what you did. Spartaz Humbug! 15:42, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Silence does not constitute a consensus, Spartaz. There is evidence of disagreement on the talk page from a couple of days ago. Similarly, no participation does not constitute agreement to close the dispute by the parties - if you actually cared to check the guidelines on closing RFC/U. So let's see - your action is not supported by the guidelines or any previous practice. Your own arbitrary say-so? Is this your general approach, or am I just incredibly lucky to see it for myself? In the meantime, yet another user who wanted to comment was unable to do so. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:56, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What gives you the right to determine the consensus for the close there? Spartaz Humbug! 15:58, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But apparently you do? I'm amazed by your logic. Anyway, Protonk seems to sum it up well. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:11, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Before this spirals out of hand I've started a thread on the talk page suggesting that we just have a non-narrative close in order to put a bullet in this thing. I'm decidedly not married to the previous narrative close and I bet plenty of people would prefer a close with no statement (or would be indifferent between the two). Honestly its not worth the bother. Protonk (talk) 16:05, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Spartaz shrugs his shoulders and wanders away. At least its being discussed now... Spartaz Humbug! 23:23, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Phatchance discussion[edit]

Hi Spartaz, please see additions to the Phatchance discussion on your talk :), thank you Stevezimmy (talk) 06:19, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for the reminder. I'll have a look and think about it but if the sources bear out what you say I will be considering restoring and relisting for further discussion. Spartaz Humbug! 06:32, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rolling back[edit]

Do you need some help? Tim Song (talk) 06:57, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • yes please, everything connected to natural units deleted the wrong page with a wscript with so many back links :-/ Spartaz Humbug! 07:00, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD close[edit]

Hi Spartaz, just a comment/question about this AfD close. I fully agree with closing as merge (obviously, since I commented there), but the target to merge to, Tupac Shakur, is quite problematic. The "album" The Lost Tapes: Circa 1989 simply does not bear mentioning in Tupac's bio—it was a bootleg which was quickly taken off the shelves, and it currently is not even mentioned in our article Tupac Shakur discography, much less in his biography. I proposed a merge target of Beginnings: The Lost Tapes 1988–1991 which is the name this album received when it was officially released 7 years later with the permission of Tupac's estate. It seems pretty clear to me that that is where any useful information should go, and that anyone who searches for "The Lost Tapes: Circa 1989" (which is actually not an unlikely search—it's damn well impossible to underestimate the fanaticism of some Tupac aficionados!) should be redirected to Beginnings: The Lost Tapes 1988–1991 where they will learn about the musical content in question, rather than being sent to Tupac Shakur where they will learn nothing (I can't think of any way to mention the bootleg "The Lost Tapes: Circa 1989" in Tupac's bio since it was an unofficial release after he died which has no real bearing on his life or legacy).

There were three merge !votes in the AfD, but to be frank the other two provided no explanation for why they thought the main bio article on Tupac was the appropriate place to merge, and I think the above explanation shows why it's problematic. If you think it's okay to merge/redirect The Lost Tapes: Circa 1989 to Beginnings: The Lost Tapes 1988–1991 then I'll go ahead and do that. Another alternative is to contact the two other editors who supported merging and see if they have a problem with sending the content over to the album article rather than the bio. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 15:49, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • By all means used your best judgement. The merge target was far from clear and I guessed to be honest. Spartaz Humbug! 16:02, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Disgusted by antiitalianism[edit]

I am disgusted by the antiitalianism behind the decision to delete Maltese Italians (I write this not against you personally). The usual trick of accusing an Italian of sockpuppetry has obtained the usual result of erasing an article that has been 1) changed totally from the initial version;2) changed the name (the last name was "Pro-Italian Maltese");3) two or three times times requested to move or delete. Wikipedia needs articles showing all the areas of encyclopedia knowledge, not only those contrary to the Italian people in their historical/geographical Italian region. Indeed there were plenty of valid and useful references in the article just erased. User:Demdem, the one who masterminded the vote against the article, showed HATE even toward his own people, only because they wanted to unite Malta to Italy. He even forced to retire a Maltese Italian who wanted to save the article (see user:Maltalia). Do you believe this is a fair attitude? Sorry, but it is NOT of an encyclopedia to be one-sided. And Wikipedia should not be in the hands of groups that do meatpuppetry and accuse even a simple wife of a banned user, like me, of doing sockpuppetry in order to get advantage and erase the articles they don't like. I repeat: I don't write this against you personally. God bless you.--Mrs.Maria (talk) 20:25, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quantum Electromagnetic Resonator[edit]

Hello. Just a heads-up that Quantum Electromagnetic Resonator still exists, despite the rest of the articles listed in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Selfconsistent gravidynamic constants vanishing. I realize you're under a bit of stress, but if you could spare the time over the next few days to finish wrapping up the AfD, it'd be appreciated. Have a nice halloween! --Christopher Thomas (talk) 05:49, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm less stressed now I fixed the botch up with deleting the wrong article and this one has now also vanished. Thanks for the nice reminder. Spartaz Humbug! 08:25, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quantum LC circuit[edit]

I am a bit mystified on your justification for deleting quantum LC circuit. The deletion debate you referenced did not propose this article for deletion. While the AfD listed a large number of associated articles for deletion, this was not one of them, in fact, it was specifically cited as a potential target for redirects of other articles. SpinningSpark 08:50, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oh, I see what happened the article I thought I was deleting was redirected there. One sec. I'll restore it. Spartaz Humbug! 09:21, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Now restored and fixed, sorry for any confusion caused. Spartaz Humbug! 09:24, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Euclid D. Farnham Deletion[edit]

Hi Spartaz, I'm not sure I agree with your decision to ignore input from those Project Vermont wikipedians that I invited (canvassed) to come along and comment. I didn't do so for a keep vote, and of course its note about a majority vote anyway, but because I knew they would have an opinion and might be able to throw relevant light on the subject. I would like to ask you to reconsider the delete in light of a review of all of the comments (even those 4 who I asked along) and consier keeping the article at least in the light of WP:NOTHING - but also as it may become more obvious that Euclid should be here as the Tunbridge Fair page is expanded. Mickmaguire (talk) 23:51, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • When you canvass votes you can't really complain if the closing admin discounts them to some degree and, even if you had not, I would have given them little weight because they were not arguing keep per policy but by assertion. notability is dervived by producing solid sources not by saying so. Few deletions are ever final so feel free to come abcdk to em if you do find some sources. Spartaz Humbug! 02:00, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Euclid D. Farnham[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Euclid D. Farnham. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Mickmaguire (talk) 17:48, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

pSX (emulator) deletion and AfD, disagreement[edit]

A few points of order:

As with many similar articles, this one has a long standing, and it's obvious that some people are willing to make it a better article. The software the article is about has been around for quite a while and has many users, especially since it is a great application; but that is partially seen by way of things such as forum posts and other discussions; exceptions are noted where votes on an application are allowed and it shows the user count (does that assert nothing?).

It seems that common/proper procedure was NOT taken regarding this article. It makes no sense to just delete this one, while many others indefinitely hang in the balance while boldly displaying "fix-it" tags for years on end. And what of this article in question? I haven't seen one tag in it, except the one put there to delete the article. Notability is high enough, the issue is proving it in an acceptable way, something not everyone can dedicate the necessary time to immediately, which is why the tags should be used.

Since this application is still in development, and since upcoming new features will vastly alter the scope with which this application is received by the community, it seems that the article for it will just be recreated when a future version comes out. If this possibility is already previewed within the article, doesn't that create some sort of paradox?

On to further problems with the whole process that occurred. While some of the policy was sound (while some was not), it doesn't even apply. Considering that no explanation was given for the concensus (and that there were only proposals made), such a judgment seems as if it is based solely on the person deleting it. Personally I think it was a very weak split decision that was made to look as definite somehow.

There are quite obviously better ways of handling this whole matter. I guess I don't see the good about suddenly nominating such an article for deletion, which of course doesn't do all that much to help when it goes like: "PROVE NOTABILITY NOW! ....ok, page wiped." In the meantime, a decent enough portion the rest of the world are performing actions that contrast the "concensus" that about 3(?) people have made. And even if you can't fathom Wikipedia ever being wrong and going against what the world may think, does it not count that people made a flurry of edits in the short time before the deletion? Clearly attempts were being made to salvage. I just can't bring myself to agree with the side that argued "I did a Google search to look for reliable sources (which proved fruitless)." Maybe it's just me? ~~ 09:59, 28 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.244.250.85 (talk)

  • Er actually, that's exactly how it works, so I guess it must just be you. If you want to keep an article that is challenged on notability grounds you need to provide the sources to demonstrate it meets our sourcing and notability guidelines. If you think that other articles have similar weaknesses then you are welcome to nominate them for deletion too. Your choice. Spartaz Humbug! 11:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, what the hell are you talking about? You don't seem to be making sense. Did you even get what I said? So yeah, it's just me that thinks it's insignificant some guy that wants to delete an article says he can't find sources? Wow, what a great system you are advocating there. Well, I think I'll give you the benefit of doubt and just assume you didn't mean such a thing.

The main issue was that there was absolutely no good reason given to get rid of the article on such an important topic. Sources or not (....sources for what, exactly? The issue shouldn't be making it a better article, considering ANY of the reasons mentioned for deletion) it doesn't mean anything when the subject is important. Proposing to delete the article and then having to require people to rush and save it from its supposed deathbed is surely NOT good procedure here.

It seems that you ignored nearly ALL of my points, such as how the proposal for deletion was weak, the arguments to delete it were weak, and how ignoring efforts to make it a better article was weak. Then your decision was even weak, simply saying what amounted to "well this side said some policy". Yeah gee, some people spouted off some policy and claimed they couldn't find a source in a google search. Come on, that should sound ignorant no matter who or what you are. 69.244.250.85 (talk) 10:45, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • You can think what you like but that is how this system works. If you want to keep an article that is challenged on notability then you source it - that is you find a minimum of two decent detailed indpendent citations in a reputable publication. If you can't its going to get deleted and, with respect, the closing admin is the one that determines where the balance of a discussion sits not the editor trying to keep the article. Finally, may I suggest you try keeping to a civil approach because, thanks to your insults and aggressive response I'm no longer interested in interacting with you so you just lost any chance you might have had to persuade me to change my close. Spartaz Humbug! 11:09, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's nice to see how emotional you are. Like I give a crap. Anyway, you still ignore the whole point of the deletion and can't seem to grasp proper use of enforcing policy. Articles aren't generally deleted for lack of sourcing, as there are thousands of of them without such notes and they are safe for the time being; and then why have that template mentioning how an article needs more sources for info? This articles had NONE at all, yet it had a lot of info, so how is it wise to quickly review things and make a limited decision? It makes no sense with the way you are approaching it. So just because a person or two may not like an article, they can put it up for deletion immediately, it might not even be contested if no one is paying attention, and if it is argued then hopefully someone shows up within a week and can update the page to meet some moderator's arbitrary determination of how good the sourcing is. So I guess it doesn't matter one bit that the subject of the article might be an important one, as long as you can keep quoting weak policy as if it favors your twisted reasoning, then you will never be fallible. Great job, good to have you around. 69.244.250.85 (talk) 12:02, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, articles are deleted for lack of sourcing all the time, when that lack of sourcing correlates to lack of notability. When an AfD discussion happens and the sources listed in an article are examined (if there even are any), a discussion follows as to whether or not the sources meet WP:RS and whether or not the topic itself meets WP:N. This article (PSX emulator) had a handful of sources at deletion, and not a single one of them was a reliable source. If a deletion discussion runs for seven days (give or take) and there are people advocating to keep the article and it still doesn't have sources to show notability, then the judgment that it's not a notable enough topic to include becomes much clearer. There's no reason in the world this article couldn't exist at some future time if it becomes notable. This close was correct; the consensus was that the topic is not notable.  Frank  |  talk  12:31, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of criminal organizations[edit]

This close felt like you took sides. You say that the delete votes use more policy, but the nomination itself gave no policy-based reason for deletion and many of the delete !votes were no better, employing such hazy concepts as 'non-encyclopedic'. Saying that the delete votes cited NPOV, V and RS while the keep side didn't isn't really a fair characterisation of the debate - the keep side said that sourcing is perfectly possible, which is an implicit reference to V and RS. As for NPOV, the keep arguments said that the list didn't have POV problems, also implicitly referring to policy. The dispute was really over whether the list can be defined properly or whether is it inherently POV, and the discussion gives no clear consensus on this. Some very vocal editors argued for deletion on BLP and POV grounds, but I can't see that they carried the argument. There was even support among those arguing for deletion for splitting the article, which suggests that material could have been kept per WP:PRESERVE even if the article was not kept intact. Did you consider a non-consensus close? Fences&Windows 04:29, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to disagree with your analysis of the discussion but stating that sourcing is possible without actually delivering any is an exercise in assertion and policy is that is that we place much less weight on assertions then we do on actual citations. I'm afraid that I read the delete arguments as much more persuasive which is why I reached the outcome I did. While I recognise that this is subjective rather the objective, I'm afraid that this is what the system gives us and I have had enough AFDs through DRV to be confident that I am not generally reading consensus in an unacceptable way. Obviously willing to discuss further but I suspect we won't be able to agree on this. Spartaz Humbug! 09:35, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The reason why you don't often get improvement work in the case of such contested articles is that participants are loath to put work in if they feel that the article might be deleted. It's a Catch 22 situation. I can see why you reached your decision, but I'm thinking of asking for a deletion review. An alternative could be to restore the article into the Article Incubator, where the article can be sourced and splitting can be discussed. If it can't be sourced and shown to be neutral, it can be put out of its misery in the Incubator. Fences&Windows 01:43, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You can go to DRV if you like but I'm happy to userfy this as long as its brought to DRV for endorsement when you feel its ready to go to mainspace. The debate was well attended so a new consensus would be required. Where exactly do you want it to be usefied to? Spartaz Humbug! 03:32, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you just stick it into my userspace rather than the incubator, I promise to behave and see if I can source it all properly, and go to DRV if it looks like issues with NPOV aren't going to condemn it. Fences&Windows 01:31, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus[edit]

Hello there,

Once again, I'd like to thank you for reconsidering the Boris Malagurski article and putting the issue up for discussion again. At this moment, it has been a week since the discussion was re-opened and there doesn't seem to be a consensus. Meanwhile, another source seems to have surfaced, from the Global Research Centre, the creator and owner of which is Michel Chossudovsky, who has his article on Wikipedia. I've reorganized the Boris Malagurski article, removed some insignificant information concerning his personal life and past student films, and stuck to the information in the secondary sources and sources relating to his non-student films. If you're interested, I would encourage you to take a look, as I believe it's much better now :)

My question is whether this means that, since there is no consensus after a week, the article will stay or not? Thanks,

--Cinéma C 05:18, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

what happens is down to the admin closing the discussion. If its no consensus it will probably stay. Spartaz Humbug! 05:21, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, I was just wondering how it works. Thanks, --Cinéma C 05:26, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wendy Babcock AfD[edit]

Hello, You closed [5] as no consensus, default to delete. First of all, I'd argue the sources and !votes make it a pretty clear keep. In addition, as no consensus closes are to default to keep (per WP:DEL) except under very specific circumstances, I'd ask you to reconsider your close of that one. Thanks, Hobit (talk) 09:50, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems you have deleted the article on Wendy Babcock. I would like this reinstated please. It is wholly accurate, and I would like to bring it up to date and add some recent information. 173.34.7.25 (talk) 11:46, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The articles on Wendy Babcock have seemingly been deleted. Please reinstate the articles. There are some recent updates that should be added including her attending York University Osgood Law School. Stephen Haggert (talk) 11:48, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for being patient while I was away. I take the view that policy is what people do rather then what is written down and there is sufficient support for some BLPs to default to delete on non-consensus that we could, and should, test the opinion of the community of this subject from time to time. Consider this close a breaching experiment if you like. I'm comfortable that I took the right action here although I accept that its not what policy currently says. Feel free to take this to DRV or find another admin to review the outcome as, right now, I'm interested in finding out how this plays out. Spartaz Humbug! 14:31, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unless there is immediate harm being done to the subject of the article, would you mind undeleting it briefly while the DRV is open? (With the {{TempUndelete}} tag, of course) GlassCobra 20:05, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I just found it. Spartaz Humbug! 20:12, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[[6]][edit]

Would you retract the untrue claim you've added to my comment in that DRV? I've made over 200 edits on dozens of other topics on Wikipedia that have absolutely nothing to do with Euclid Farnham. I find your claim offensive. --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 02:08, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I'm sorry if I was being a jerk but I was just surprised to be called a "single purpose account". I have at least two purposes here (and none of them is defending some farmer... that was just incidental) :-) --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 02:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not convincing...[edit]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_October_30&curid=24881105&diff=324337241&oldid=324336619 ....if the policy you are pointing to comes up as a red link ;-) --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:28, 6 November 2009 (UTC) [7] happy now? Spartaz Humbug! 20:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Natural unit and Natural unit system[edit]

Could you undelete these redirects to Natural units? I'd recreate them, but I don't know if they had content at one point. Thanks! --Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 21:32, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • It doesnt look as if there was anything there but I have put then back. Spartaz Humbug! 02:33, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 November 6[edit]

Hi, I don't understand your answer to my request about File:Cnit.jpg. The picture was uploaded on en: first, then transferred to Commons and deleted here. It's going to be deleted on Commons because Commons applies both US and local law. What I ask is that the picture that was deleted *here*, on en:, be undeleted. It's much cleaner as it will preserve the file history. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 12:48, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

G7 doesn't apply to userspace[edit]

FYI, Speedy G7 does not apply to userspace. Please see my discussion of this at Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Septemberboy009/Blades_(band), where I was the closing admin. You were looking for Speedy U1 which suggests that some editors may take this as a request for deletiondeals with requests by the user, Wikipedia:User_page#Deleting_user_pages_and_subpages says "Blanking of user subpages is interpreted by some as a deletion request." I think it was a bit of a bad idea to delete them while the MfD was under DRV - especially because Biteyness was a concern, but I have no other objection.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 14:49, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Alvin Fields[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Alvin Fields. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Tim Song (talk) 03:06, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your close of the AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zhang Zhaohuan[edit]

Hi, I saw that you have just closed this AfD as "keep". I am rather surprized by this outcome. Looking carefully through the AfD, it does not seem to me that the "keep" closure was justified here. A "relist" or "no consensus" seems much more appropriate in this case. There were two keep !votes, one delete !vote (mine), one relist !vote and the nom suggesting deletion. Among the keep !votes, the first one, by User: Warrah, is rather vague in suggesting that google searching produces enough hits to indicate notability. Plain google searches are not indicative of notability, while specialized google searches (GoogleScholar and GoogleBooks) produce very little. I tried both spellings of the subject's name before casting my delete !vote. Moreover, as the nominator notes in his comment below Warrah's !vote, the nominator is fluent in Chinese and tried to do google-searching in Chinese as well, with not much luck. The second keep !vote, by User:Collect, points[8] to a single academic paper where the authors thank the subject of this article. This is a very far cry from satisfying WP:PROF (which typically requires verifiable evidence of high citability) or WP:BIO. The last !vote, by User:Abductive, was to relist. The rationale given there is that sources might exist and that more time may be needed to find them. With respect, I also cannot view this !vote as a rationale for keeping the article. The burden of proof with respect to existence of sources is on those who wish to keep the article; they must demonstrate that such sources exist and it is not enough to say that "I think the sources may exist". Under the circumstances, I think that relisting this AfD to get more input from other users would have been the best decision. But I really can't see how a plain "keep" closure was justified here. Could you please take another look and, if possible, explain your reasoning? Thanks, Kinoq (talk) 17:34, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I discarded the nomination as not being a valid reason for deletion. Relist isn't areason to delete and is rather ironic and the two keep votes both adduced some sourcing and were not fully refuted. The remaining delete vote referted to a sub guideline when there had already been a reasonable argument that sources existed to meed GNG. Overall, there was no consensus to delete so I could have gone for that but I felt there were sufficent evidences of sources that keep was also a fair result so I erred in favour of the content. Spartaz Humbug! 18:26, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Whose argument do you mean when you say that "there had already been a reasonable argument that sources existed to meed GNG"? Kinoq (talk) 18:57, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Collect and Warrah both linked to sources and Collect's claim was better then a google search and was not refuted. Spartaz Humbug! 20:17, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nemu64[edit]

Re Nemu64, perhaps it would be better to move it to User:Valoem's userspace since he seems to be willing to work on improving it? I thought whoever closed the DRV would to move it to his userspace instead of deleting it again, see the request on WP:REFUND. --Tothwolf (talk) 08:34, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • yeah, maybe yes. Spartaz Humbug! 08:38, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done Spartaz Humbug! 08:44, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Good deal, thanks! Hopefully they can get the article into good shape as I'm certain it can be done. --Tothwolf (talk) 21:30, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Human disguise[edit]

Can you please explain your reasoning on undeleting this page? The consensus was to delete, as has been shown, and deletion was the correct outcome. Verbal chat 08:39, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously deletion wasn't the right result otherwise DRV would have endorsed the deletion and I think I explained my reasoning for the close in my statement. Spartaz Humbug! 08:46, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. Please give a fuller account of your reasoning. You have simply made an assertion. Verbal chat
You are entitled to disagree but I have explained my close on the deletion discussion and I am not sure exactlty what part of is not clear or needs expansion. Perhaps you could explain what your concern is? Spartaz Humbug! 08:58, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Even though it seems to override the community and policy, and endorse AfD and DrV abuse and gaming, could you also restore the talk page. Verbal chat 08:44, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In contrast i would see this as being completely in support of community and policy. I would suggest to Verbal that he draw a line under this, and then check in on the article after a reasonable period and, if it has not improved to the point where he is satisfied with it as an article, that he then start a fresh AfD unencumbered by the previous disputes and axe grinding. Artw (talk) 18:19, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And by "reasonable period" I most certainly meant more than 0 days. Artw (talk) 21:05, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On a completely unrelated note, I fixed your close on the actual DRV subpage. Just thought you might want to know. Tim Song (talk) 08:42, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On a related note, neither of you seem to have got the close right; the drv is not displaying at all.   pablohablo. 08:58, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's intentional as the subpage was not transcluded. It's not a bug - it's a feature. :) I can retransclude it if you want. Tim Song (talk) 09:02, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever's normal for DrV I suppose - seems odd though that the "hidden content" contains neither the debate nor the closing rationale.   pablohablo. 09:07, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retranscluded. Wasn't sure why it was untranscluded in the first place - a certain DRV was semi-untranscluded when it was so long it hit the transclusion limit. Tim Song (talk) 09:24, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On another unrelated note, Talk:Human disguise should also be restored. Cunard (talk) 08:43, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • yes, give me a chance with all the orange bars and shitty wiki formating and a slow 'pedia today there is room to give me half a chance you know. Spartaz Humbug! 08:46, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the DRV close was reasonable. One request, though: would it be possible to note on the actual AfD the DRV results? This way, no one will refer to the AfD who is unaware of the DRV with confusion. Please note that this was similarly done at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of problems solved by MacGyver (3rd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of units in the Age of Mythology series (2nd nomination). Thank you. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 15:04, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • You are welcome to add the link yourself if you think that would be useful but this outcome would have no bearing on any future AFD anyway. Spartaz Humbug! 17:19, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Human disguise II[edit]

Please note that User:Verbal has decided to ignore the DrV and immediately start an AfD against the article. Artw (talk) 21:11, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • There is nothing to stop them doing that - especially as there was a no-consensus close. Whether it is wise to do that is another matter but I will not been doing anything about this as no policy was broken. Spartaz Humbug! 21:14, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tothwolf[edit]

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tothwolf/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tothwolf/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Manning (talk) 02:36, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wendy Babcock DrV[edit]

Sorry about not sending you a notice about the DrV, I'd meant to do so but got distracted. Glad you found it. Hobit (talk) 22:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problems I know that it would not have been intentional and I'm around DRV enough that's its reasonable to expect me to know about it anyway. :-) Spartaz Humbug! 06:38, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suffer Tour[edit]

Hey there, you recently closed a number of AfDs, including this one. However, you only deleted the main article from this nom, there were another four articles co-nominated, could you delete these also. Furthermore, the article's creator seems to be recreating some of these articles without addressing any of the concerns raised at AfD... Cheers, Nouse4aname (talk) 18:58, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • They were all deleted when I closed the AFD so its a recreation problem, apply G4 tags and let natire take its course. let me know if it continues and I will salt the locations. Spartaz Humbug! 20:38, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Er, I just checked the logs, sorry I thought I had deleted them. I used a twinkle add on to batch delete but it looks like it didnt take hmmm thanks for your notice. I hadn't noticed that at all. Spartaz Humbug! 20:43, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • No worries, another admin picked up on it when I G4'd the main article anyway. Cheers, Nouse4aname (talk) 12:22, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Battles ... AfD[edit]

Hi. You closed WP:Articles for deletion/Battles of macrohistorical importance involving invasions of Europe (2nd nomination). Would you G8 these two related pages?

  1. Macrohistorical battles tied to the existence of European civilisation
  2. Talk:Battles of macrohistorical importance involving invasions of Europe/Archive 1

Thanks. Flatscan (talk) 03:25, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Done Spartaz Humbug! 07:00, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • As a note S Marshall requested those articles be userfied for him. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 14:34, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks. Good catch on the talk page that I missed. Flatscan (talk) 03:22, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Roosevelt Coat of Arms[edit]

You wrote that there was a consensus to merge Roosevelt Coat of Arms into Roosevelt family, however, I fail to see this consensus. There was 1 delete, 2 merge and 2 rename. One of the votes to merge also suggested renaming in his comments. Even if you ignore his comemnts and strictly apply his vote as one for merge only, a 1-2-1 vote is by no means a consensus.

While I did not create or name the article, I did provide the information. It is a new article, and there seems an unfair requirement that I need to provide enough information to make it a featured article before it could be considered for inclusion. Already, the article is still more detailed than many articles one can find throughout Wikipedia that stand without interference. Those that voted are not part of the heraldic nor anthropologic wikiprojects, and showed little understanding of both subjects. I would request that the 'consensus' be withdrawn, and the article be renamed to Roosevelt (surname) so it may conform to both aforementioned wikiprojects, and to my own original intents that I was not able to implement. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 21:13, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Roosevelt (surname) isn't the appropriate place to put material about a coat of arms and we already established that there wasn't enough independent sourcing for a standalone article. We don't count noses in discussion but look at the strength of argument against policy and I'm afraid that anything you submit to wikipedia is subject to the consensus of the community and you can't choose who does or doesnt contribute to a discussion. I'll look at again at the discussion for you but I felt that was the best option at the time to balance the material being contributed and the views about the location. I'll come back to you in a bit. Spartaz Humbug! 21:32, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Having those unfamiliar to heraldry or anthropology make the final decision is like having a knitting class decide if the Super Bowl is of enough relevance to be included. Or of the Euro's relevance to a homeless man in Souteast Asia. While everyone has an opinion, the supervising wikiproject should have more weight in the matter because of their familiarity. I am confused how the article I have written does not meet the same standards as these articles of similar subject matter: Russell (surname), Łuk coat of arms, Achinger coat of arms, Perry (surname), Alabanda coat of arms, Mogiła coat of arms, Hołownia coat of arms, De Cock and so on. If more information is still required for my article, then I will need more time. This is a site built up mostly from peoples contributions at their leisure, so I would ask that I be allowed to build up my articles in the same leisurely timeframe. It is easy to cite some policy, then give an opinion on how it is a relevant (everyone that wanted the article deleted cited different policies, so the policies are not even definitive) and then ignore precedent from the established heraldry and anthropology wikiprojects. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 02:23, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • I would suggest that you try taking a less dismissive attitude to your fellow contributors then you currently are if you want to get any help at all from me. Also please use : to ident your text as it makes it much easier to follow the flow of a conversation. Spartaz Humbug! 04:19, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I was not sure how the indention worked. I am not trying to be dismissive, I apologize if that is how I come off. The wikiprojects that have jurisdiction are a small group of people that work rather sporadically. I simply think, with their familiarity, that they should be allowed to have time to state their opinion as to what should be worth entering under their domain of expertise. You could imagine how upset any wikiproject would be if outsiders to the niche came in to dictate what should be included in their project, what needed to be deleted for 'irrelevance'. Much of the issues that were brought up were things that the other users were unsure about, thus unfamiliar with. It only seems logical to give more weight to the opinions of experts and professionals than those that never read much into or noticed the subject. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 05:02, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, according to policy we have no experts and everyone gets to weigh on and wikiprojects do not own articles or get to set their own policy against overall policy. I'd suggest you read WP:ND3 and take it from there. Spartaz Humbug! 20:12, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am new to Wikipedia, so am not at all familiar with the policies. But it seems an odd policy that, say, a college professor would have as much say in what constitutes a notable article in his field as a 14-year-old C-average highschool student. That would lead me to believe that any group of people that bothered to coordinate and plan could then actually achieve deleting countless articles simply by outnumbering everyone in a vote, rather than relying on the expertise of the familiar. Thank you for the direction, and I guess I will begin the tedious work that was suggested by policy. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 00:59, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I can completely understand how the anarchic way we organise and work can be bewildering to new users but remember that the collage professor will inevitably be able to better source their edits then the c grade student so their edits will generally prevail. With regard to deletion, the community tends towards inclusion rather then deletion and for most hot button articles there are competing groups of users who want to keep and delete so it all works out in the end. Spartaz Humbug! 16:05, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kristian Ayre[edit]

Regarding the AfD for Kristian Ayre. You cited "lack of policy" for negating all keep claims, and proceeded to use poor sourcing as a reason to delete. Poor sourcing is a surmountable issue, and as such is not a sensible reason to delete. Notability was marginal, but asserted. Sourcing issues are why we have sourcing tags. I do not agree with your close. (Though apparently I'm pulling my opinion out of my butt, and not the guideline page that says problems that you can fix are not AfD reasons. Also WP:TIND.) - BalthCat (talk) 19:36, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sourcing issues are surmountable by, er, providing sources. We don't keep stuff around if it doesn't meet the notability guidelines without a good reason and policy based arguments win AFDs everytime if the other side isn't referring to policy. Spartaz Humbug! 20:08, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • So asserted notability is no notability at all when there are insufficient sources, but not having sources is a surmountable problem? I'm not sure there's logic there. - BalthCat (talk) 05:30, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The rule at AfD is that notability has to be proven there with sources. This is a result of a practical need, since it is next to impossible to conclusively prove that a subject is not merely unsourced but also unsourceable - one cannot prove a negative. As a result, if a delete !vote says that they can find no sources after a good-faith search, it is normally taken to establish a rebuttable presumption (or a prima facie case, whatever) that the article is not merely unsourced but also unsourceable. To rebut the presumption, then, one need to supply sources. Merely saying that there may be sources somewhere without providing them or proving that they exist is not good enough. Tim Song (talk) 06:26, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • In my experience it is only recently that I've come across a strong tendency to consider weak-sourced (note: not *unsourced*) yet asserted notability "unsourceable" due to "good faith" attempts by deletionists. Sourcing is, and should be treated as, a surmountable issue, when there are at least weak sources and established editor assertions. It's not something someone pulled out of their ass, now is it? It's IMDB, which is rather good, all things considered. - BalthCat (talk) 02:30, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm really not sure what point it is your are trying to make here. We have very clear inclusion criteria that can be summarised as find two decent reliable sources that discuss the subject in detail. Any editor can list any article to see whether it meets the criteria and the discussion is open for a week, publicly listed and is open to all to comment. If, at the end of the week, the editors commenting have come to a consensus that the article doesn't meet our inclusion criteria it gets nuked. Simple. I don't see what the drama is and you are welcome to bring me additional sources at any time and I will review them against the discussion and determine whether the consensus is still valid. If you don't like that you can take me to deletion review but, frankly, DRV won't overturn the deletion if you can't find the sources. So, its really down to you to go look for some sources isn't it? Complaining about how the system sucks doesn't actually change that in any way shape or form. By the way, IMDB is not and never will be an accepted source because the content is not peer reviewed or meaningfully fact checked. Please read WP:RS for more information on sourcing. Spartaz Humbug! 15:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I took issue with the appearance that 20 people saying "Does not fit WP:N" means everything, when other editors listing (admittedly) weak sources as interim measures are useless and "not citing policy." Sourcing issues are surmountable, surmountable issues are not cause for AfD. If you don't immediately discount weak sources as interim sources or subtantiating to assertions of notability, then there I do not see concensus. (ps: I have read chunks of RS, and I don't care whether or not IMDB is a proper RS or not, it's a perfectly valid interim source for substantiating assertion of notability until such a time as sources can be found.) - BalthCat (talk) 01:56, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • You seem determined to go with your own ideas of what should be kept in mainspace rather then what the accepted norms are so I'm at a bit of a loss to know how to respond to your idea of interim sources. I suggest you go raise it with the nice people at talk RS and see what they say about it as it would need a policy change before that would fly. Spartaz Humbug! 02:53, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Recent AfD[edit]

Hi Spartaz: You recently closed the AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mishk'vei ishah. There is also a redirect at Mishkvei ishah that therefore still needs to be deleted as well that's related to the original deletion. Sincerely, IZAK (talk) 08:30, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Lekim74[edit]

Re WP:EWN#User:Lekim74 reported by User:Anomie (Result:not 3RR see note below ), Lekim74 reverted again yesterday followed closely by a post to the talk page.[9][10] He was replied to. Then this morning he reverted again, this time with no attempt at discussion.[11] Anomie⚔ 13:33, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I blocked them for 24 hours. If the disruption continues afterwards I'll make the next one indefinite. Spartaz Humbug! 16:02, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP: WALK[edit]

(the spelling correction) No prob, Spartaz. GoodDay (talk) 19:41, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Monochrome BBS[edit]

I note with sadness the recent deletion of the page for Monochrome BBS (is there any way to get emailed about an AfD on a page on my watchlist? Otherwise how are we supposed to know, if we don't have time to login regularly here?) I assure you that Monochrome is notable, and of interest to internet historians, at least in the UK, but understand that the article doesn't currently meet WP policy. I'd like a copy of it in userspace so I can try to dig out more references. It may be difficult - you have to bear in mind that Monochrome's heyday really pre-dates the mass media taking any interest whatsoever in the internet. However, I know of at least one or two other potential references which hinge on the story of a couple who met via Monochrome and eventually married - they appeared on a daytime TV show and I think it probable that that story was picked up by other outlets. I am a very occasional WP editor, still a n00b really but someone needs to get on this and stop it disappearing into the ether. Thanks. Quaestor23 (talk) 20:23, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm afraid that we don't have an email this user when a page is nominated function, but, if you need a copy of the article emailed to you or the page userfied in your area please so you can work on the references please let me know. Spartaz Humbug! 06:10, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes please (userfied). TBH I think I have already gathered more than enough references. I hope it can be restored before the various links to it across Wikipedia start to disappear. What's the procedure to get it reinstated once I've fixed it up? Thanks. Quaestor23 (talk) 02:14, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Userification[edit]

Hello,

While doing CSD work today I came across an article that you'd previously userifed that had been moved back to mainspace. In the process, I noticed that you hadn't userified it properly. The content of the page had simply been copied from the deleted history into the user copy. By doing that, you broke attribution and made it look like you wrote the article, which obviously wasn't the case. To properly userify an article you must undelete the history and then move to article in order to preserve the history. Failure to do so technically creates a copyright violation.

The userification in question was preformed a while back, so it is possible you had learned the proper procedure in the mean time, but I wanted to make sure. Let me know if you have any questions, ThaddeusB (talk) 05:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Which page are you referring to? I used to just userfy the last version and asked the user to let me know when it was restored to do the history undelete so I need to speak to someone about not letting me know about it. Spartaz Humbug! 06:08, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bong cooler[edit]

Hi there! I notice that you've closed the Afd for Bong cooler and indicated that the result was 'delete' Having looked at the debate, it would seem to me that the correct result was 'no consensus' as the comments suggest an even split between keep, redirect, and delete - indeed, simply by counting the number of "votes," 'redirect' comes out on top.

Would you mind explaining to me, why you think the result of this debate was 'delete.' Thanks! Guinness (talk) 17:20, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Consensus is measured against policy not head count so the actual numbers of voters would not necessarily reflect the rough consensus. In this particular case the issue was notability and original research (and by extension verifiability) and guidelines are that such arguments are reinforced by demonstrating a lack of sources and refuted by producing sources and references that support the notability and content. In this discussion the delete side successfully argued against the sources and this was not adequately refuted by the keep side so there was a clear rough consensus to delete. If you have sources to show the deleted content was adequately sourced then please let me know. Its a given with any AFD I close that I will always review deletions if sources are produced. Spartaz Humbug! 17:26, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, Spartaz, I do not see anyone "moved the page [and] then vote to redirect the page to the new location". If I'm parsing the move log correctly, S8333631 (talk · contribs) moved it to Evaporative Cooling Tower, which Bongomatic (talk · contribs) moved in turn to Evaporative cooling tower; the former !voted to keep; the latter !voted to redirect to evaporative cooler, a different and established article. It was not clear whom you were referring to. Tim Song (talk) 17:36, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Aha, I see what you mean. I saw 04:13, 27 November 2009 . . Bongomatic (talk | contribs | block) (2,976 bytes) (moved Evaporative Cooling Tower to Evaporative cooling tower: MOS) in the page history with no reference to the other two moved when I clicked on the link to the article and didn't realise that I had run through two, not one redirect. This just shows exactly how confusing and disruptive it can be to move an article during an AFD as page logs don't follow the moved page and its difficult to follow the trail correctly. I will review my close on the basis of this. Good catch. Spartaz Humbug! 17:42, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, I don't think that there are quite enough reliable sources, however, there was a plethora of unreliable sources, which in itself is often enough to lend a note of reliability. At the end of the day, I believe that this is a sufficiently notable and 'interesting' device that its article's presence improves wikipedia (I'm sure I don't need to quote IAR to you). If a 2/3rds opinion (of the few numbers who contributed to the debate) is that the article should not be deleted does not give sufficient indication of the WP community's opinion, then we should try and establish that further (somehow, don't ask me how), rather than simply deleting it on a technicality. Guinness (talk) 17:48, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • No you don't need to quote IAR at me because its a rubbish reason to retain material that isn't correctly sourced. I'm currently reviewing the close because of the basic error that Tim Song has pointed out to me above (my first act was to correct my closing statement and post an apology to the affected editor). I'll be honest, I very rarely close as merge if the material to merge is unsourced, I'll be honest, I can't see any meaningful objection to leaving a redirect once the unsourced article has been deleted. Bear with me a minute or two please. Spartaz Humbug! 17:56, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Maybe someday I'll argue with you about "improving wikipedia" being a "rubbish reason" ... but not today. Anyway, thanks for listening. Guinness (talk) 17:59, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Ah, you see the argument would be whether the 'pedia is improved by having unsourced original research masquerading as "fact" but thats a meta discussion that splits the community right down the middle. I revisited the discussion and I think the clear consensus was that this wasn't adequately sourced and could not be sourced. Some arguments for redirects don't actually include keeping the content but I have no objections to you putting in some redirects if you feel like it. Redirects are cheap after all. Spartaz Humbug! 18:08, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DrV on Scroogle[edit]

Spartaz, Please reopen that DrV at let it be closed on time. What attacks there were in the DrV don't cause there to be sufficient reason to close early. Heck, unless something got added in the last day there were no attacks, just disagreements. Hobit (talk) 20:56, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Did you not see Kendrick's comments at the very end of the discussion? I asked them to re-factor and they refused. I have a long standing practise of closing DRVs early if the nominator starts attacking other users, impugning their motives or using it as an attack platform. This is the first time for a very long period that someone has queried this. I'm not sure why this one is more deserving then others that I have closed for lesser reasons but I guess the outcome of the DRV a little less obvious then usual. Happy to discuss further of course and since its a wiki, of course, anyone independent can review the action but I didn't see this as a particularly controversial action. I'm going to bed now so sorry to appear to be saying no and running but I have a busy day ahead of me tomorrow. Spartaz Humbug! 21:23, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I actually didn't see them. But even reading them I don't see anything that S Marshall didn't already say was _his_ thoughts on the matter. I think it's pretty darn obvious that anything associated with DB is being handled differently. I, like S Marshall, don't even claim it's clearly wrong--he provides solid reasons for doing so. But he is only calling people on what at least some people are admitting to and is pretty obviously true. He made it plain he respected those folks, but disagreed with them in this situation. Hardly an attack. And closing a DrV early about an AfD that was closed early about a topic that involves wikipedia is, IMO, fanning the fire. Hobit (talk) 22:35, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I posted a request to look over this to ANI. I suspect your close will stand, but I wanted to get some more eyeballs just to be sure. Hobit (talk) 22:42, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[edit]

Hello, Spartaz. You have new messages at Bongomatic's talk page.
Message added 23:27, 29 November 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Bongomatic 23:27, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine[edit]

As you decided to short-circuit the deletion review process on Scroogle, over my objections, I must assume you'll have nothing against the re-creation of the article once new reliable sources come to light. It's a shame we couldn't keep the process on the up and up, as it were, but c'est la vie. -- Kendrick7talk 07:23, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, if you are going to attack other editors you can't really complain if you dont get your way and I would object to he artcle being restored unless a draft had been approved by DRV. Spartaz Humbug! 07:33, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, I would have to assume that the DRV process would be short-circuited yet again, do you understand? There is no "my way"; I'm only here trying to write an encyclopedia, that being a compendium of human knowledge. Certain parties don't share such lofty goals, and, as I've said elsewhere, shame on them. Writing an encyclopedia is a trying task, some days, but I do what I must do. It's not like I would ask my media friends to write a new expose on Scoogle just to rectify recent events. Heaven forefend!, at least for a few months lest things look unseemly ;-) -- Kendrick7talk 09:26, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Technical_Itch[edit]

I believe that Technical Itch article was mistakingly deleted -- Tech Itch is actually pretty notable d&b artist. If you want formal proofs, Tech Itch's track is on Animatrix soundtrack, which meets criterion 10 (Has performed music for a work of media that is notable). Also he have released several albums on well-known Moving Shadow label, which, I believe, meets criterion 5 (discography is available on discogs: http://www.discogs.com/artist/Technical+Itch).

There is also a complaint about a lack of sources in the article, this is true, but it is easy to fix -- there is a Tech Itch's biography on allmusic (http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=11:gifoxqqhldje~T1), it confirms all major facts, I think, and the rest can be confirmed through discogs.

(I'm in no way affiliated with people who wrote that article, I just came to wikipedia to get some information about Tech Itch and was quite surprised that article about him was deleted. I've got a deleted text of an article from wikipedia admins whom I contacted via IRC.) Killerstorm (talk) 20:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • The article was deleted nearly 12 months ago so its entirely possible the subject has become notable in the meantime. I have no objection to you trying your hand at recreating the article but you will need to find some reliable sources and properly document why it meets our inclusion criteria if its to avoid being deleted again. If you need some help with this my go to guy with music stuff is user:Chubbles. You can tell them I suggested they were to best person to help. if you do redo the article please let me know as I'll need to undelete the history to comply with our license. Good luck and welcome. Spartaz Humbug! 20:51, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Since you're using it as policy, I've promoted the page to policy, to bring it in line with how you work. Now, I'd also like you to do the leg work on linking in the DRV policy with it if you could, as you'll know best where those links need to be added and what wording is now incorrect. --Barberio (talk) 10:38, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Hello[edit]

A few short words in lieu of no hard feelings? I tend to be over-passionate at times in AfD's and especially DelRev's with my opinions. I have no direct issue with you whatsoever, and apologize if I offended you, as I did on the del rev discussion in question. Keep up the great admin work (I may sometimes disagree with you, but now you know my nature and hopefully will not take offense).Turqoise127 (talk) 15:52, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Spartaz/Archive9&oldid=1144402806"