User talk:Spartaz/Archive16

I think perhaps you misread the starting date--that AfD has only been open for 1 day, so it definitely should not be closed yet. You didn't site WP:SNOW, but I don't think it would apply here anyway as there simply hasn't been enough discussion yet. Could you revert the closure, please? Qwyrxian (talk) 02:18, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Indeed I can. Sorry for that. Spartaz ^Humbug! 02:37, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some time ago you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarah Knappik as delete. The nomination back then was part of a larger orchestrated effort of deleting any mention of the lady accross several wikis by a number of SPAs and IPs. de:Sarah Knappik has since been recreated due to continued coverage of the original and new events negating your BLP1E closure. I feel the article should be recreated here as well. Any suggestions how to proceed? Agathoclea (talk) 09:13, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm no longer an admin but my view is that the presence of a de article is irrelevant to en. The question is, has the coverage increased to the point that the subject clearly passes the GNG an BLP1E? If the answer to that is yes than G4 does not apply and the article can be recreated or whatever. Obviously, someone might disagree with that and relist it at AFD but you could always ask for a DRV to review the new sourcing if you wanted to protect yourself from that. Me? I'm not bothered. I just closed the AFD many moons ago and have no further interest. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:24, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You've left a mess on the table in your move. Please be collaborative and go help clean up the mess around conservation-restoration, rather than just being destructive.--RichardMcCoy (talk) 02:30, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Your response says far more about you then it does me. Spartaz ^Humbug! 02:38, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stunningly, User:RichardMcCoy has followed up your close of the DRV with emptying out of turn, and blanking the contents of, the category he objected to, Category:Art conservation and restoration. What, in your opinion, is the appropriate followup behavior?--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:12, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Since I gave uo my block button some time back I can't really say that my opinion on conduct really counts for much ..... {see below}

Flattering, really, Mike, that you keep coming back to me. Even though you keep saying you're going to quit me. (I moved those into the other newly made category before Spartaz closed the discussion per the move of the other category and the example I gave you). --RichardMcCoy (talk) 15:33, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Why don't you both go find something useful to do with your time? Thanks. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:48, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, I thought you were an admin. My apologies.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:54, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • No worries, its an understandable mistake. I was an admin for over 4 years and its unusual for an active editor to surrender the bit so no obvious reason for you to assume that I wasn't still one. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:03, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Foswiki. Since you had some involvement with the foswiki redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 02:02, 23 March 2012 (UTC) Whats with your obsession with deleting stuff? Get a life mate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CharlesBronson18 (talk • contribs) 21:23, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 02:05, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick note to thank you for your supportive comments on my talk page earlier today regarding the NFCC dispute I was involved in. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:37, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 07:00, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello Spartaz. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click HERE to participate. Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 02:36, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. DGG ( talk ) 18:09, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article Foswiki has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Article is recreation of previously deleted article that was changed to redirect. No notability independent of Twiki (main article) other than split which is noted in main Twiki article. No discussion on article recreation.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Ravensfire (talk) 21:41, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey - thanks for the note you left. I honestly wasn't sure what to do on this. I was pretty sure that reverting the Foswiki page back to a redirect would end up in an edit-war. I wasn't really sure of the best approach, but decided on a prod over speedy to push the Foswiki supporters to find some sources that would show independent notability. To be purely procedure, there should be a deletion review of this. I see that a new AFD has started for the "new" Foswiki page. If that goes delete (again), I'd suggest the closing admin protect the Foswiki page as a redirect and leaving a note on the talk page with the reasons and pointing anyone interested in creating a new Foswiki page to DRV. Ravensfire (talk) 18:47, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spartaz, a while ago, you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Celebrity Jeopardy! (2nd nomination) as a Merge to Jeopardy. It has not been merged yet. However, there were enough keep votes with good arguments that in my view the close should have been keep, with a merge to be discussed on the talk page. Would this be an appropriate case for deletion review, or can it be simply dealt with on the talk page? Thanks, D O N D E groovily Talk to me 12:25, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Please see WP:ND3. I can't see that I could possibly have closed that as keep without supervoting given that this was a well attended AFD. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:36, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good news! You are approved for access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research.

• Account activation codes have been emailed.
• To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1
• The 1-year, free period begins once you enter the code.
• If you need assistance, email "help at highbeam dot com", and include "HighBeam/Wikipedia" in the subject line. Or go to WP:HighBeam/Support, or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
• A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:HighBeam/Citations.
• HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
• Show off your HighBeam access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/highbeam_userbox}} on your userpage
• When the 1-year period is up, check the applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 04:48, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

look at some of the article creations for unreleased singles

Please see my comments on the talk page for the ludicrous decision to delete tech itch's article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.105.182.44 (talk) 16:58, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mate the AfD said that if information comes out (date, format) then the tournament is notable. Only 1 user said when the tournament starts it is notable but that was quickly looked at badly and the regular users of Wikipedia:WikiProject Football came in and said when information is out. Now there is information out from the Federation hosting it. There are 2 teams out of 5 announced. There is cash money announced and there are dates announced. This page is notable. If you can, please undo the redirect. --RedBullNewYork2012 (talk) 14:01, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Too soon. If you don't like it, go ask the closing admin or raise a DRV. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:19, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  REPLY   TOW  talk  04:20, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I understand that I messed up pretty bad on all those AfD discussions. Thank you for for informing me about my mistakes and helping me fix them.   REPLY   TOW  talk  04:27, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Spartaz :). Just a request; I saw your PROD of Culmicole, and was wondering if you could use more transparent deletion rationales in future? "dicdef" doesn't really mean anything to people not already familiar with it. Even linking would help. Thanks! Ironholds (talk) 10:21, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Done. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:27, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks! Ironholds (talk) 11:44, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fæ/Workshop#F.C3.A6_has_used_multiple_accounts.2C_not_all_declared – I'm just letting you know that you've been mentioned in an ArbCom-related discussion. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:15, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:31, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spartaz, I don't think this page should be removed since this tournament is going to take place for sure, its just not officially announced. I do understand that this page is early, but i don't think it should be deleted, because im pretty sure that someone will make a page for this if you delete it. so, why don't we just redirect this to International cricket in 2012–13 instead of deleting it. Thank You.--Killswitch 125 16:09, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm happy with a redirect, the article will be required eventually. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:13, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have mentioned you here. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 01:30, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll reply today or tomorrow DGG ( talk ) 16:20, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Spartaz, you recently closed the Diana Vickers' Untitled Second Album AfD as a redirect to Diana Vickers. However, the author had changed the name of the article twice during the course of the AfD. Can you also redirect Diana Vickers' second album? Thanks. Sionk (talk) 10:16, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, as you took part in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lamia (Dungeons & Dragons) (2nd nomination), which closed on "no consensus", I'm bringing to your attention a discussion on whether to merge or not that has opened on the article talk page.Folken de Fanel (talk) 10:50, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure from your note on my talk page what you think ought to be done in this case DGG ( talk ) 00:22, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Spartaz. Because you participated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Universe Today (3rd nomination), you may be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Universe Today (4th nomination). Cunard (talk) 23:05, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you take a look at WT:DRV#DRV bot request? Thanks a lot. T. Canens (talk) 15:57, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there. As you expressed interest in hearing updates to my research in the dispute resolution survey that was done a few months ago, I just wanted to let you know that I am hosting an IRC office hours session this coming Saturday, 28th July at 19:00 UTC (approximately 12 hours from now). This will be located in the #wikimedia-office ^connect IRC channel - if you have not participated in an IRC discussion before you can connect to IRC here.

Regards, User:Szhang (WMF) (talk) 07:06, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Spartaz. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of CacheBox, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: There is salvageable content here, so G11 doesn't apply. I'll send it to AfD. Thank you. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 19:53, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Waste of effort imho but your call. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:57, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GregJackP Boomer! 23:38, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know - sometimes Huggle has a habit of making it unclear to whom a message will be sent. I believe I meant to send the message to the most recent page editor, but since it was a different user's talk page, it was sent to that user instead.

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

In this issue:

• Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
• Research: The most recent DR data
• Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
• Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
• DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
• Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
• Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

--The Olive Branch 19:31, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

You may be interested in this discussion. I'm notifying you because you participated in the first deletion discussion and/or the deletion review. LadyofShalott 16:43, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Hotel Le Meridien Limassol Spa & Resort., requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:17, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Spartaz,

I'm not exactly sure what this comment means "The sources you add don't materially add to the level of sourcing." for this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Amanda_Blain Do you mean there are not enough sources? I figured 11 sources including some from New York Times, About.com and other major sites would be a good place to start for my first article. I assumed other more experienced writers would be able to do more research at some point, but thought this was enough to prove notability and get it started. Can you give me some more advice in what else might be needed? Brand new at all this so want to make sure I understand for the future with any tips you have.

Thanks

Geek4gurl (talk) 06:06, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Spartaz. I'm dropping you a note because you've been using the Page Curation suite recently - this is just to let you know that we've deployed the final version :). There's some help documentation Wikipedia:Page Curation/Introductionhere that shows off all the features, just in case there are things you're not familiar with. If you find any bugs or have requests for new features, let us know here. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 12:02, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To add your named to the newsletter delivery list, please sign up here

This edition The Olive Branch is focusing on a 2nd dispute resolution RfC. Two significant proposals have been made. Below we describe the background and recent progress and detail those proposals. Please review them and follow the link at the bottom to comment at the RfC. We need your input!

Please share your thoughts at the RfC.

--The Olive Branch 18:44, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Tito Dutta ✉ 02:26, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In this feedback, Special:FeedbackDashboard/51034, the user is unhappy with his declined AFC, seeing the history, you were a reviewer of that submission. That's why I have added a talkback in your page (see the last message of his talk page) Regards!--Tito Dutta ✉ 14:36, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied in my talk page! --Tito Dutta ✉ 15:13, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looking through my talk page archives, I came across a discussion we had when I was a new editor concerning pages to be deleted under CSD G5. Most of those articles are deleted now, so I cannot be certain, but I think I recall some of my edit summaries at the time as being rather uncivil toward you. I wanted to apologize for that, and to thank you for pointing out the error in my way in a very polite and civil way. --Nouniquenames 17:57, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• There is no need to apologise as no offence was taken and clearly none intended. I don't feel you were uncivil although I was quite brusque. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:46, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

this DRV. It looks like you might have grabbed an article in a mass-nom that you shouldn't have. Hobit (talk) 01:06, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• looks like admin error. Stupid admins! Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:50, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry. I wanted to add more info :: * page Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Airagwani has many other redlinks to pages which User:Julius Sahara wanted to be kept. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:26, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There was no consensus to accept Julius' list and one other participant actively disagreed tso undeleting these would require a substantive discussion and relisting at AFD even if DRV accepted that Julius was right about the locations he wanted to keep. I'd suggest finding sources first and recreating based on these rather than trying the DRV route. There really isn't a need to DRV and G4 doesn't count if the reason for deletion (unsourced locations with doubtful status) were to be overcome by the provision of sourcing. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:34, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey all :).

We're (very shortly) closing down this development cycle for Page Curation. It's genuinely been a pleasure to talk with you all and build software that is so close to my own heart, and also so effective. The current backlog is 9 days, and I've never seen it that low before.

However! Closing up shop does not mean not making any improvements. First-off, this is your last chance to give us a poke about unresolved bugs or report new ones on the talkpage. If something's going wrong, we want to know about it :). Second, we'll hopefully be taking another pass over the software next year. If you've got ideas for features Page Curation doesn't currently have, stick them here.

Again, it's been an honour. Thanks :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 12:27, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is about 20 pages long article (I have seen it in 2009) and discussion does not give any hint where there would be a copyvio problem, if any: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Controversies surrounding Royal Dutch Shell (2nd nomination). In my opinion the demand to delete 20 pages that were in my opinion very good in 2009, is a political attack. Here is no confirming data of copyvio problems or discussion about it. Even more so as this succeeded to keep the controversies of Shell at leat two years out of Wikipedia. Do you call it neutral? Does Jimmy Wales call it neutral? I feel these deletions were based on political and commercial interests. It is not neutral to demand me to do free work for several weeks to restore the article. I am busy. I feel that you steel my time and prevent article to be returned including Royal Dutch Shell market manipulation Royal Dutch Shell environmental issues Royal Dutch Shell enviromental, litigation and controversies Watti Renew (talk) 16:56, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Watti, the page you are looking for is Wikipedia:Deletion review. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:01, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He did that. he asked for a page cited for copyvios restored which is never going to happen in a 1000 years so I closed the DRV and suggested he started from scratch. If any substantive admin disagrees than they are welcome to overturm my close but I strongly believe my action is fully mandated by practise at DRV. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:47, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I sound unpolite. I am in hurry with personal matters. I hope we can find here a solution. I have not seen the deleted document. In my opinion one person's claim of copyvio is not convincing enough. Please show me the document to be able to consider the suggestion forward. Watti Renew (talk) 14:56, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you are hurried you should have left this to a time when you had the time to research the subject. Other users shouldn't have to do your dirty work because you can't be bothered or don't have the time. It took me only a few minutes to find the examination of the copyvio claims by our most experienced copyright admin confirming that the article extensively used unfree text. You need to try and work from the basis that everyone is being reasonable & since you haven't see the document you are in no position to disagree with the closing admin and MRG that there were copyright issues. You are free to recreate a new article but the deleted text won't be coming back. In any event, I'm no longer an admin so physically can't undelete the text any more. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:05, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will check this, thanks. In my opinion Shell articles are not neutral if excluding controversies since e.g.:

• Current Ogoniland community have lived with chronic oil pollution throughout their lives. Of most immediate concern, community Members at Nisisioken Ogale are drinking water contaminated with benzene, a known carcinogen, at levels over 900 times above the WHO guideline. Ogoniland oil facilities are operated mainly by the Shell Petroleum Development Corporation (Nigeria) in the upstream activities. (UNEP Ogoniland Oil Assessment Reveals Extent of Environmental Contamination and Threats to Human Health UNEP Aug 4, 2011, Environmental Assessment of Ogoniland (9.7 MB pdf) UNEP Aug 4, 2011 Full report 2011) Watti Renew (talk) 16:58, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• 280,000 barrels of oil were estimated spilled in two leaks in 2008 in the Bodo region in the Ogoni district. Ca 80% of people in Bodo were fishermen dependant on the clean water. (Shell oil spills in the Niger delta: 'Nowhere and no one has escaped' Guardian 3 August 2011)

• The oil spill was among the worst off the coast of Nigeria in 10 years in December 2011. Shell announced a 40,000 barrels of crude oil spill from Bonga field. (Nigeria on alert as Shell announces worst oil spill in a decade Guardian 22.12.2011)

Watti Renew (talk) 16:59, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• • I'm not sure what the point of this is. If you want to create a neutral article without closely paraphrasing your sources than you are welcome to do so. There is absolutely no point in trying to interest me in doing this for you. Just go ahead. If you need help try articles for creation. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:13, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The guidelines are good. Thanks. Please show me the removed article, so I can start to fix the copyvio problems. In my opinion instead of removing the articles it is better to fix the problem. Everyone is proud of his work, and every editor is important for the good encyclopedia. Removals make people feel that their work was useless, and it does not encourage and inspire to stay in the team. Wiki is a collective project. Even if I started this thread, everyone is free to help to solve the problem. I have max ½-1 hours a day available and you must remember that we have e.g. ongoing elections in Finland. Please give me the removed article with its history: User:Watti Renew/Controversies surrounding Royal Dutch Shell. In my opinion the original article should not be deleted, since it gives the years history of the article and the work that has been done is valuable. Therefore, I put the case in the Deletion review for Controversies surrounding Royal Dutch Shell. Idea was to solve both the copyvio problem and keep the history of the article. Inorder to do so I thought that WP:DELREV is needed. Watti Renew (talk) 17:58, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read what I wrote before? The deleted article made extensive use of unfree text. It was a copyvio and we will never undelete that. Just start from scratch - there is no rush - we have plenty of time to put the article up when its ready. Secondly, I gave up my bit, I'm no longer an admin. I physically can't undelete anything anymore and I have no intention of getting my bit back because of your badgering. Even if I could, I wouldn't because we don't undelete copyvios - ever! It doesn't matter how many times you make this request, the answer will remain the same. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:46, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You deleted my WP:DELREV request and did not consider my WP:DELREV arguments: It is not neutral to delete a 20 pages long document that has been on line for 3-4-years or more.
Wikipedia:Deletion policy If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion. Copyvios can be fixed. I will contact some other admin. Watti Renew (talk) 17:48, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. I'm tired of your badgering and this circular discussion is proving unproductive for us both.. Be sure to draw the attention of any admin you contact to the DRV and this thread. Good luck. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:51, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Thanks for your encourage. I will drink some days coffee. Don't worry, I'll continue after a break if the issue will be still unsolved. Watti Renew (talk) 17:54, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with most, if not all, of what you said here. I wish more comments, both on RFAs and elsewhere, were as thoughtful and considered as yours was. Nicely done. --MZMcBride (talk) 15:29, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you :-) Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:35, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for consolidating these two articles. I had intended to do so.BrentS (talk) 21:17, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I beg to differ with regards to your deletion. The page is well researched, cited and detailed. In comparison to other rugby clubs, this page is very detailed.DukeArlington (talk) 19:04, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I haven't deleted the page - I redirected it but all the material there remains in the history. I did look at the sourcing and none of the sources looked like anything that would meet our inclusion standard. Its very rare for a schools sports team to be independantly notable from the school because of the problem arounding finding enough independant details secondary sources. There is no reason why you can't add a couple of paras about the team into the school page but you need to avoid cramming it all in and swamping the school page. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:54, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help on this. I'll work on improving the article in my userspace and will update you when the article is ready be be reviewed again. Vivj2012 (talk) 10:51, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is just a tribute.

Anyway. You're getting this note because you've participated in discussion and/or asked for updates to either the Article Feedback Tool or Page Curation. This isn't about either of those things, I'm afraid ;p. We've recently started working on yet another project: Echo, a notifications system to augment the watchlist. There's not much information at the moment, because we're still working out the scope and the concepts, but if you're interested in further updates you can sign up here.

In addition, we'll be holding an office hours session at 21:00 UTC on Wednesday, 14 November in #wikimedia-office - hope to see you all there :). I appreciate it's an annoying time for non-Europeans: if you're interested in chatting about the project but can't make it, give me a shout and I can set up another session if there's enough interest in one particular timezone or a skype call if there isn't. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 11:22, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Lol, I could see this coming on my watchlist. Okeyes you should consider using a bot to deliver this. ;-) Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:40, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can I ask you on what basis you linked Dualus with this sockmaster? [1]? Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:53, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I based it on the discussion archived here. I am unwilling to cite further pieces of evidence, since it might easily reveal the persons real-life identity, which is a big no-no. Gabbe (talk) 13:22, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response to the Victor Dahdaleh article and I understand your decision. I'd like to create a draft article in my userspace for you to review, if you would be happy to do so? Thanks Vivj2012 (talk) 10:13, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Sure, go ahead. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:14, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be able to send me (emailuser) the last contents of UFC on FX: Johnson vs. McCall and UFC on FX: Maynard vs. Guida? I am going to incorporate them into another page. Unfortunately the information was lost when they were deleted. Thanks in advance! Oskar Liljeblad (talk) 22:28, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize in advanced as I am not familiar with the formal process of asking for a rollback or for an article to stop being protected. However Paul Summerville is a prominent politician/figure in Canada with a family history of notable politicians. The page was well supported by sources. Most importantly he is in an upcoming election where it is speculated, by himself that somebody was attacking his wiki page [[2]]. Could you look into this claim and possibly rollback the page. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coopera18 (talk • contribs) 17:04, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• This has already been discussed. It doesn't matter how many accounts you create to puff this page, it doesn't meet our criteria - see WP:POLITICIAN. This isn't coming back unless there is a policy based reason to reconsider. Not having a page means he cannot have his page vandalised so he should be quite pleased with that. Spartaz ^Humbug! 02:13, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the information on WP:POLITICIAN and the notability aspect of article creation. I am assuming a certain threshold of independent third party articles (media) would suffice in establishing notability? Is this what you mean by "policy based reason"? In any case, could it become unprotected for a few days in order to establish legitimacy (or if not how would one demonstrate article worthiness?)Thanks for the help and patience. Coopera18

• The guidence you are looking for is the GNG which discusses the threashold of sourcing. You also need to look at BLP policy which basically mandates that living people have to be notable for more than one thing - i.e. losing elections which generates routine coverage doesn't cut it. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:43, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - can you advise why you felt Tané Matsukata qualified for an A7. While I acknowledge the COI and that the article was borderline and needed expansion, I felt that being the founder of a notable school and the connections with other notable family members was at least an indication of importance. Thanks,  7  23:33, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't personally agree that founding a school is an assertion of importance and it certainly wasn't implied that he had any separate notability. For some reason the article came up on my new pages feed as unpatrolled which is why I didn't pick up the speedy had already been declined. I was under the impression that any editing my admins or confirmed users automatically patrolled a new page so no sure why it was there. Anyway, I have undeleted. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:18, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On November 5 you deleted my article on the Food Packaging Forum on accounts of A7. I have tried to recreate a page that complies with the wiki criteria for an article of notability. I have very little experience with wiki so far, would you be able to give me some feedback on the new article? thanks lowa88 (talk) 3:13, 19 November 2012 (UTC+1)

• Give me a couple of days to look at this but at a quick look I couldn't really see how the sourcing had improved enough. If you want other views why not try and put the draft through our articles for creation process? Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:45, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Spartaz. I will wait a little longer, to see whether there is newscoverage from outside coming up and then I'll put it up in the review process. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lowa88 (talk • contribs) 09:09, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I declined your speedy deletion request for this article, as I was able to find enough sources covering her and her work that I believe she would have a pretty good chance of meeting the GNG. I posted them on the article's talk page, if you would like to review them. Additionally, the article had already been nominated for speedy deletion by Jhortman and that request had been declined by WilyD earlier in the day, and as a result for procedural reasons it should not have been re-nominated for speedy deletion. You are welcome to pursue deletion through other means, if you believe that this is wise. Thanks... -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 18:09, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If I remember rightly, a common part of DRV is a note at the page where the discussion was held. Either no note was left, or one was left that I didn't notice — regardless of which one, I had no clue that any DRVs had been filed until a few minutes ago, when I found multiple messages on the subject. I only found out about these closures because I was going through CAT:CSD and found a file that had been reuploaded after deletion, and of course I'm not going to perform a G4 deletion on a page that never had consensus for deletion in the first place. I can't undo anything, because SchuminWeb has chosen to wheel war with me by re-deleting everything. Nyttend (talk) 23:05, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what point was attempting to be made there, and there definitely hasn't been any consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Byuusetsu (talk • contribs) 00:05, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Which discussion are you referencing? Spartaz ^Humbug! 02:07, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2012_November_16 Byuusetsu (talk) 16:17, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • *sigh*At some point you need to drop the stick and accept that consensus is against you. MMAEVENT is an essay. That means that any guideline or policy is going to come ahead of it once the essay conflicts with the policy/guideline. Please read up on how we judge consensus. Its not a vote - its arguments based on policy. Since MMAEVENT isn't a policy arguments based on it are always going to be judged as inferior arguments to those based on an accepted guideline or policy such as GNG or V. Does that help you understand the context of the decision? Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:32, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

You recently deleted Rokform as CSD-A7, but the page was sourced to GNG requirements. Would you please undelete it?

Thanks, Nouniquenames 13:58, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It has coverage in CNET, CNN Money, Mashable, WIRED, etc., but many of the articles are routine product promotions. I pointed out in AfC it may not pass muster, but since I did spend a bit of time on it and at least one editor found it worthy, maybe it should go to AfD.

I have asked for a userfied version at the undeletion board since I would expect more sources to be forthcoming. Corporate 14:18, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• You have already got it at User:Corporate Minion/Rokform so if you want it listed at AFD feel free. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:38, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Spartaz. There is some confusion, because the user-space article was AfD under Misc category, so now there is an AfD about my user-space draft, rather than on whether the article should be kept in article-space.

I'm not sure how to fix the little tangled mess, but as an admin do you have rights to close the AfD[3] and either restore the article and AfD it or file a DRV? Or should I just let the weird user-space AfD run and start a DRV? I have nominated a few articles for AfD before, but that is the extent of my knowledge. Corporate 15:40, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Much thanks. I realize it's probably annoying for a COI editor to ask of, but I appreciate your help. Even if it gets deleted, I will be able to let them know "this was the decision." See ya around. Corporate 18:40, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! Is there any way you could either email me a copy or put in my userspace a copy of the Alex Pyron article that I wrote over two years ago, and was deleted? I would greatly appreciate either way, I would just like to see the content. Thanks -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 22:37, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

•  Done User:ТимофейЛееСуда/Alex Pyron Spartaz ^Humbug! 02:09, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! It won't be of use yet, but I needed some information for another project. Thanks for your quick assistance. -- THMOPENREECYRA (public) 04:30, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Gosh, thank you very much. I'm genuinely touched. :-) Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:12, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I know it was a long time ago, but I have a question about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mearns Leader (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). This paper seems to have some significant history and I wondered whether any info contained within the following would be useful in revisiting the topic.

• http://www.scottishcorpus.ac.uk/corpus/search/document.php?documentid=1376&highlight=newspaper+gleanings (Scottish Corpus of Texts and Speech)
• http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=6az73FqFVMMC&pg=PA522&dq=%22Mearns+Leader%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=BsLAUKfnO464hAfXloH4Dg&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=%22Mearns%20Leader%22&f=false
• http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=BuXoAAAAMAAJ&q=%22Mearns+Leader%22&dq=%22Mearns+Leader%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=BsLAUKfnO464hAfXloH4Dg&redir_esc=y
• http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=_ofgAAAAMAAJ&q=%22Mearns+Leader%22&dq=%22Mearns+Leader%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=BsLAUKfnO464hAfXloH4Dg&redir_esc=y
• http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=YCdVAAAAYAAJ&q=%22Mearns+Leader%22&dq=%22Mearns+Leader%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=BsLAUKfnO464hAfXloH4Dg&redir_esc=y
• http://www.mearnsleader.co.uk/ (no obvious "about"/"history" section)

Considering the discussion was well over 2 years ago, perhaps I should go to WP:DELREV (or WP:UNDELETE) - but I thought I'd come to you first. What do you think? Thanks. -- Trevj (talk) 23:35, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Have you been able to look at the books you have cited? The only one I could see into properly was a mere mention and unless we can see detailed coverage I don't think this would pass the bar of GNG. In particular with regard to your sourcing:
  • Scottish corpus isn't about the paper - it just quotes from it
  • Aberdeen, 1800-2000: A New History is just a mention
  • The Bibliotheck - from what I can see its another mention
  • Benn's Media, Volume 1 is a directory and they rarely count
  • Newspaper press directory, Volume 121 is another directory.
• If you want to bring this back I would expect DRV to ask for a much more detailed set of sources and you would probably have to have copies to refer to rather than relying on a sneak-peek from google books. I wouldn't undelete on the basis of this but if you want to spend a week at DRV fill your boots. Spartaz ^Humbug! 02:06, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Unfortunately no, I've no more knowledge bout the content of those books than what the search pops up. I see what you mean about the SC quoting from the publication, rather than discussing it. However, I referred to that because of the cited date of 1915: this amounts to several generations of readers, and goes towards explaining why there are apparently so few online refs. The non-existence of the article means that those editors who may have knowledge of the subject (e.g. members of WikiProject Scotland) are far less likely to improve the article by seeking further sources for it. The low participation numbers in the discussion seem to suggest it could be undeleted (rather than DRVd) - yes it may go straight to AfD but at least that would give the opportunity for wider discussion. Does any of that explain my rationale a little further? (Incidentally, I was prompted to make these enquiries because the title came up in connection with research I was doing for a new article here, and is not motivated by any other reason.) Thanks. -- Trevj (talk) 13:05, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  This already had its discussion. While the participation was low the outcome was policy based and we have no quorum. I see no reason why we should assume notability when a decent search for sources including looking at the google books returns has drawn a blank. If you have a couple of decent sources I'd vacate the close in an instant. Absent that, I think DRV would expect you have something better and the AFD outcome is foreordained so why add the overhead to the chaff and chatter already on the go? Do what you will but drop me a note if you do recreate this so I can consider the appropriate listing. I think given the time, I wouldn't consider this something G4 should apply to but, as I said, I don't much hope for this unless the actual sourcing improves. Wouldn't it be better to add a couple of lines to the town article and redirect the page there? At least that way there would be a place for any sourcable content and the material can grow organically should further sourcing emerge. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:56, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Spartaz. I was wondering if you could give me your opinion on if Solavei qualifies for WP:CORP. They have six articles[4] in Geekwire as well as in-depth articles in AllThingsD/WSJ[5] and The Daily Beast.[6] Corporate 22:46, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not personally familiar enough with the sources to say whether they are reliable enough but the level of detail seems reasonable. Try asking the reliable sources noticeboard for an opinion. Cheers. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:16, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Spartaz. As promised I've created a new Victor Dahdaleh article in my user space, User:Vivj2012/VictorDahdaleh
When you're free could you review the article and assess whether it's ready for publication? Many thanks Vivj2012 (talk) 16:58, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• At first blush, all of the reliable sources relate to a single event. Where is the coverage that shows this is not a BLP1E? Also, I think some mention of the charges needs to be included in the text but there is so little else there that I can't see how we can include it without overwhelming the whole article. I feel the BLP issues are potentially insurmountable and the rare occasions we have seen this kind of scenario we have generally opted to have no article at all rather than a deeply flawed one. I'm not really sure how we move forward but before we do anything we have to beat BLP1E.... So back to you on that.... Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:14, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blood donation in Bangladesh and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Badhan (blood donor organization). MBisanz ^talk 04:09, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I like that article much better than the first one.... Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:01, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Okey good to hear. MBisanz ^talk 17:00, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I created Linux Unified Kernel as a redirect, (you deleted the article per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Linux Unified Kernel), now that it's a redirect any reason to leave the history suppressed? Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 05:12, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Is there any particular reason not to keep it deleted? It was unsourced so not suitable to merge and if you have sources you may as well just write whatever it is you need to write. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:00, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's the wrong way of looking at it. Someone may wish to view the article, or use some of it's content in WP or elsewhere (just because it isn't sourced doesn't mean that someone can't find a source). Also it's still on the Internet here so it would be nice to give the contributers credit. In sort un-suppressing the history at least has the potential to do some good and would do no harm so why not? Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 01:00, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the material is already available then there is no reason to restore the history. Wikipedia is not responsible for attributing content not hosted on its servers so providing credit isn't a valid reason to undelete the history. Spartaz ^Humbug! 01:41, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, so did you factor in User:WhisperToMe/Talk:Michael Pollack ? That was written as a response to DGG's beliefs that it was focusing on undue aspects. I was in the middle of responding to a user on this matter. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:55, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Nope, if you want arguments to be taken into account you need to raise them in the DRV or otherwise debates would be spread right across the project. Spartaz ^Humbug! 01:56, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then please re-open the page so I can put it in (or let me make a part II discussing these issues), considering that there were several users who were in favor of moving the page to the mainspace, but believed that weight should be addressed, but also believed it wasn't relevant to the debate, which is why I made it a separate page (i.e. Sionk's response)? BTW all the users discussed the weight issue - some believed that one should re-create the article anyway, but that weight can be discussed later. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:59, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why don't you go look at the draft and work on the issues raised? There is no deadline so we can take the time to get this BLP right before we put it in mainspace. Spartaz ^Humbug! 02:04, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'll be happy to work on the draft. The issue is: based on what I found, I believe that in Pollack's case seemingly "undue/promotional" aspects are not really undue/promotional, such as philanthropy - sources explicitly say he's a philanthropist and there are multiple reliable sources which talk about his philanthropy, therefore I wrote a section that talks about philanthropy. And in regards to one user's comments "The number sources is only one of several criteria for determining notability. What do you think are the others?" - the issue is undue weight, not notability, and the former is entirely controlled by # of reliable sources.
      • What I would like, in terms of feedback, is for other users to understand that, and then come back and review my findings and say "well, you can trim this section since there are too few sources on that aspect" - In fact when I looked at the part on early life I found there weren't as many sources that discussed that aspect as much as the others, so maybe I could go back and trim that section. But one has to appraise the # of sources to do that.
      • Another user asked about criticism. I would like to have more criticism, but perhaps the only negative aspects I've found about Pollack were the lies about his 1980s "Colonial House" promotion. Perhaps one other thing I could do is look if there's any criticism on what he did in Arizona. I did a Google search and one article said explicitly "Despite his flamboyant style, Pollack seems to have few outright critics, even among[...]" so that means it's going to be tough to find criticism to temper the good things he did.
      • WhisperToMe (talk) 02:13, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Have you asked DGG for a more in depth critique? Spartaz ^Humbug! 02:40, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • That's a good idea :) - I'll send him a talk page message about it WhisperToMe (talk) 02:42, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • He's going to look at it within a few days. I'll just work on other articles for the next several days WhisperToMe (talk) 03:38, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed your comment on the MMA project talk page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mixed_martial_arts#A_New_Day) re: linking to an external wikia site for additional content on MMA pages that do not pass WP:NOT. I'd like to volunteer www.mmawiki.com, which I admin and moderate. I initially began using that site as an alternative to Wikipedia and since then have been very active in bringing that site up to it's current standard. It's not perfect but I'm working on it more or less daily. Aqueously (talk) 15:26, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• You need to discuss that on the MMA project page. I have no special authority to appoint anyone. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:34, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:ChildofMidnight/Empire Square Tower, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:ChildofMidnight/Empire Square Tower and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:ChildofMidnight/Empire Square Tower during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:56, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

		Holiday Cheer
		Michael Q. Schmidt my talk page is wishing you Season's Greetings! This message celebrates the holiday season, promotes WikiLove, and hopefully makes your day a little better. Spread the seasonal good cheer by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Share the good feelings.

Hi. I have found yet another sock: Shponglefan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). --LlamaAl (talk) 15:46, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• indeed. I don't really want to get into a game of what-a-mole but that sock was quacking very loudly. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:59, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fast5, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Pichpich (talk) 05:04, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you close this review as "deletion endorsed" when there was no consensus?: [[7]] 70.241.73.164 (talk) 07:33, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• No consensus reverts to endorse at DRV and the endorse side had more policy based arguments while the otherside mostly comprised of assertions or non-policy based arguments. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:11, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You made this yourself? Kurtis ^(talk) 14:36, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Its an old meme [8] but that image isn't free so I modified a free image from wikipedia to recreate the idea. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:44, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well yeah, facepalm's been around since ancient times (like, 2008). But I was specifically referring to the iteration you created. Very good, and free no less. Kurtis ^(talk) 01:59, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you find it useful :-) Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:31, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's been over two hours since the result. Will you do the honors to recover and then relist the image for deletion? --George Ho (talk) 06:27, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, now my day at work from hell is over. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:55, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Spartaz, I imagine this [9] revert of yours was a mistake, wasn't it? Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:11, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, I thought it was the DRV. Too many windows open. I have already reverted myself. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:13, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The wording that you have put together at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 December 30 regarding the Battle of the Line DRV is problematic, in that it incorrectly characterizes my !vote, assigns a negative value to it, and fails to speak to the nominator's disruption and other poor behavior--both by bringing such a hopeless case to DRV and his badgering of myself and other participants during the process. I respectfully request that you keep such comments to yourself and simply close the matter in line with the consensus or recuse from closing discussions in which I am a participant if you cannot do so in a properly evenhanded and impartial manner. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 05:46, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• No, I don't think so. I'm very concerned about the increase in personal commentary at DRV as opposed to addressing the substantive issues and this is historically somethint that has not been accepted as part of the deletion review process. I believe that it is not part of consensus to judge a situation by your opinion of the person/their actions rather then the item under discussion. As such, it is well within my remit to discard votes that are based on a non-policy based reason (personality/behaviour rather then the GNG/SNGs) and pertinant for me to explain in my close if I decided to underweight particular opinions expressed in the discussion. I have no personal beef with you - indeed if you check your talk page and AN/ANI archives you will find multiple instances of my standing up for you or defending an action you have taken. If anything, the evidence of my approach to you goes the otherway. The only reason you might have for asking me to recuse would be that you intend to continue to personalise your opinions at DRV in a way that observers might consider harsh or unkind. I'm sure its not your plan to act in such an uncolleagiate way in the future so I don't see that we have a potential for further conflict over this. I'm therefore not prepared to recuse from closing DRVs you have participated in. If you disagree with any of my actions then you are very welcome to start a discussion on them. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:10, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree that it is within your remit to close DRVs substantially involving myself or Dream Focus with that sort of commentary, based past disagreements we've had, such as something I brought up two years ago on this page. You are WP:INVOLVED, just as I would be in closing fictional elements AfD's, even the ones I don't participate in. Whether or not you have a particular personal issue with my or Dream Focus' conduct, the third sentence of the first paragraph of involved would cover my interactions with you, or your interactions with me. (Full disclosure: I think you'll find if you go back far enough that I actually wrote that sentence in substantially its current form, based on my own getting called on the carpet for not taking INVOLVED seriously enough on a past occasion). If you want to comment on the acrimony at DRV, then do so and pass the close on to someone else. If you want to close without commentary, I am fine with that. But I really don't think it proper for that comment to stand, given the past issues that you and I have been involved in together. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 06:59, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think you can have much of a case if the example you bring forward is, what?, two years old when I have closed 100s of DRVs and AFDs in the meantime - many (if not the vast majority) of which involved members of the ARS and yourself. I tell you what, if you think I'm too INVOLVED to close discussions where ARS members have participated then feel free to start a discussion at WT:DRV and get a consensus to that effect because I'm not seeing it myself and I won't be bullied out of fulfilling a necessary admin role that wasn't being covered for your convienience. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:19, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please reread WP:INVOLVED--this is not about you closing DRVs or AfDs in general, which I do not recall having an issue with you over since I pointed out that poor close two Januaries ago. Rather, it's about you singling out two users with whom you've had previous contentious interactions by name for your personal, non-policy-based rebuke. That is simply not acceptable behavior in this specific case, and you have one final chance to reverse your improper and abusive action: A third time I am telling you that your commentary is impermissible, and conduct for which you could be sanctioned. DRV is just the venue in which the offense occurred, not the audience to hear it. That would be AN, which is where I would go to find an administrator to overturn your biased and improper closing statement and reclose the discussion appropriately. I really don't want to have to do that, but if you won't revert yourself, you leave me no choice, and you complicate the outcome: by digging in your heels, you're calling into question not just your personal objectivity, but your willingness to be responsive to appropriate and polite feedback. It's your call--the ball is in your court, please do the right thing so it ends here. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 02:34, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm perfectly happy to defend my actions at any noticeboard of your choice but on relection, I believe that I can make my point about under wighting certain votes without pointing the finger so for the sake of harmony I have adjusted my wording on this occasion. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:16, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to let you know that the assurances I give for the November 18th set of nominations do not hold for the November 17th set of which these four are a part. Indeed, this is one of the groups that gave rise to the objections about Shuminweb's (and by extension, Koavf's) behavior. Nobody looked at 120 nominations in one day: this was a robo-nomination which got a robo-rejoinder and a robo-closure. I didn't try with this group because of its size, but if they came up again I would certainly advocate that they should be restored and put through the process again in small enough groups so that someone could actually look at them. Mangoe (talk) 11:21, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Forgive me if I'm being slow but is there a second set of images now in play? Have these been through DRV yet in any way? I have to confess your assurances are not coming immediately to mind. Can you remind me please? Thanks Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:49, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• What has happened is that there are a few admins who have been on various campaigns to stamp out what they feel are bad NFCC images. It's not entirely unjustified: with these screen shots, it's obvious that somebody scraped all of these off of a fansite which has an image-per-infobox sort of thing. What's been happening, though, is that one of these admins puts together a file of victims, runs it through Twinkle, and generates a huge block of nominations at once, and then after the seven days has passed, presumably one of the others takes a similar file (and for all I know, they may be passing the same file around to each other, not that I have any proof of that) and deletes everything.

Eventually, people got fed up. If you really want to read all about it, you need to read up on the downfall of User:Schuminweb, whose high-handed behavior was the subject of this RFC followed by this ARBCOM case, which got suspended when he quit. Well, you really don't want to read it all, but to give you a quick summary, people objected to his deletion behavior a year ago, which was capped off by a bad-faith deletion of a self-image of one of the people in conflict with him at the time. He laid low for a few months and then came back to participate in some of the image deletions which are going through DRV now.

The peak of this was on a few days in November, specifically the 17 through the 19th. On the 17th and 18th two batches of Simpsons screenshots were submitted; on the 19th there were 160 Twilight Zone screenshots. All of these were put in by User:Koavf using Twinkle, and all of them were opposed mechanically by one or two editors objecting to the pro forma nominations. The November 17th and 19th chunks were too large to be dealt with in terms of actual review; I did look at ten or so of the TZ shots and decided it was really unlikely that there was any of them which could be justified, but I didn't look at the November 17th batch at all because I simply didn't have time to look at 120 Simpsons articles. I did look through all of the November 18th files because there were few enough to deal with, and I found a few I though should be kept. The group from the 17th was deleted by Schuminweb, the other two days by User:Future Perfect at Sunrise, who is the third of our group of admins.

My feeling on the whole matter is that I don't believe any of these threesome is the copyright expert they have set themselves up as, and that at any rate these images deserve their day in court. Normally FfD traffic is pretty light here (which I understand is far from the case on Commons), and even I can keep up with reviewing everything. When someone dumps in a hundred files at once, though, (a) I can't deal with that, and (b) I can tell that they didn't look at them either. And one of the things Schuminweb did was orphan images so there was never a deletion discussion, which made it easy for him to get rid of a lot of old images whose uploader was long gone and whose deletion was hotly contested once he deleted some from articles which were sufficiently well-watched. I'm inclined to think that we need an RFC on the NFCC deletion process which will either endorse that these classes of images don't need review (and thus endorse this kind of mass deletion action) or which will lay down the expectation that these images have to be deleted so that they can be reviewed.

I know I've gone on at some length, but I feel you need to know the background here. Mangoe (talk) 15:22, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having a really hard think about what you said. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:15, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You know much more about the procedure than I do so I'm not sure if there's any kind of time limit for a clear consensus to be reached, but otherwise I do find it peculiar that you declared the decision to endorse when 4 users expressed support for the restoration while only 3 expressed opposition - one of which is essentially defunct as "no new evidence of notability has turned up" became false when I provided such evidence, while the below The7stars discussion had an adverse result with 75% opposition as opposition as opposed to our ≈33% opposition when nullfing the now defunct rational. In fact the original AFD is weak on it's own as "no evidence that this has any significance either in human cultural history or in mathematics" is now incorrect as the Natural Area Code ties it in with human cultural history the the Primorial nature of the base ties it in with mathematics. Until the number of people opposed to the restoration is greater or at the very least equal than the number in support I would suggest restoring the page, or at least giving way for a new deletion review this time displaying the referencing in the lead so that incorrect no ref arguments aren't made pior? Robo37 (talk) 19:02, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Firstly, we need to work from the point of view that consensus isn't counting votes. Opinions need to weighted against policy and the most policy compliant arguments win. At DRV we generally will not overturn a closing admin's decision unless it is manifestly wrong or there is clear evidence that policy has been misunderstood or procedures have not been followed.
• In Base30 there were issues with a number of the overturn votes. Your vote failed to provide any sources or policy compliant reason to overturn the decision and essentially was a variant of Its Useful. That's not a policy based argument so carries little weight. Pointing to google also cuts no ice and referring to wiki articles doesn't help you as we don't consider wikipedia to be a reliable source. I didn't get the sense that Unscintillating's sources were substantial and Uncle G (who is a very knowledgeable and open minded judge of content) seemed quote unswayed by them. Unscintillating's arguments were also undermined by the confusing allegation of a personal attack in Uncle G's comment which doesn't match my reading of the comment at all. (And for the record I'm being really hot on personal commentary and attacks at DRV at the moment). Salix likes Unscintillating's references but then argues that NAC mentioned Base30 but that there were no sources there that met it. Andy Dingly refers to the mention of Base30 in the NAC article but that is shown to be unsourced and the argument against it was that the claim for notability cannot be inherited - which is exactly what the policy says. So this essentially boils down to some very marginal references provided by Unscintillating. I only looked at them after you dropped me this note as it wouldn't have be right to colour my close of the DRV with personal opinions on the sourcing, but I seriously don't see what is there as the kind of sourcing you need to meet the GNG or even the wider standard generally allowed for maths subjects.
• On the delete side WilyD points out you can have the text userfied and that the discussion couldn't have been closed any other way. That carries weight for me as WilyD has a generous interpretation of notability so their endorsement is an indication of a very solid policy based close. Smokey Joe argues that your article had issues with NOR and that hasn't been refuted at all. Indeed, if your article was based on Unscintillating's sources only all of your text would presumably be removed? No?
• When I look at all of this, I'm not seeing any realistic argument that the AFD was closed incorrectly or that issues with OR and Sourcing have clearly been addressed. As such, given the framework I gave you above, this couldn't have been closed as anything other then endorse. Even if I had gone with the numbers only this would only be no-consensus and that effectively defaults to endorse at DRV. If you want it userfied to work on, that's fine too and I'll happily do that for you but before you bring this back to DRV you need to remove any unsourced material or OR and write an article purely on reliable sources. I hope this shows that thought went into the close and that the arguments were carefully weighted against policy in judging the consensus. WRT to the other article I relisted it under my discretion because I felt that policy had been incorrectly applied as arguments about discounting paywall sources have no policy basis. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:58, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the in depth reply.

I pointed towards a Google search not because I think it's reliable on it's own but because I'm not experianced enough a user to determine which results would be the most notable/reliable to use. After inspection I have found the following at http://www.prfree.com/index.php?cur=index&action=preview&id=22914 and http://www.gps-practice-and-fun.com/nacgeo.html (under Microsoft's Compact text encoding of latitude/longitude coordinates):

• "Then use the above character and integer corresponding table to convert the integers into base-N (i.e. base-30) notations (i.e. character strings). One of the latitude or longitude integers is set as an initial value (i.e., either 18,582,657 or 3,906,275 is set as the initial value). The initial value is divided by N (i.e., divided by 30). The character from the character set that corresponds to the value of the remainder is set as the first character in the base-N string notation. For example, if the remainder is "22", then the character "r", which is the 22nd character in the character set above, would be sent as the first character. Then, if the quotient is not greater than 0, the process ends and zeros are utilized to pad the base-N notation if necessary. Assuming the quotient is greater than zero, the quotient, without the remainder, is set as the next value. The character position is shifted to the next character position in the base-N notation. This process is repeated until the quotient is less than zero. The base-N notation is basically derived in this manner or with a process substantially similar thereto.

In the running example, using the character set outlined above, a latitude-based integer value of 18,582,657 converts to a base-N notation of ry7cx. A longitude-based integer value of 3,906,275 converts to 4tp95.

The last step is to concatenate latitude and longitude strings. The strings are concatenated to yield a single output value. In our running example, the encoded string resulting from the latitude/longitude coordinate would be "ry7cx4tp95"."

So, are these reliable sourses, or am I barking up the wrong tree? In regard to Its Useful I cannot see how this guideline effects mathematical notability. There are some parts of mathematics that have no use whatsoever such as the Reciprocal Fibonacci constant as a random example. As a primorial Base 30 is the most efficient base at limiting recurring fractions you can get without working with an inconvenient number of digits, which mathematically speaking makes this base more notable than the majority of base systems on this wiki that have articles. Before posting the deletion review it was also unknown to me the various sourses Unscintillating had to add even more notability to the subject matter, showing that the base system has been used in many different subject matters, including Iberian astronomy and the mathematical theory for the mathematicle interest mentioned above (http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=-sw2AAAAMAAJ&pg=PA115&dq=trigesimal&hl=en&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=trigesimal&f=false). I cannot see referencing being an issue when there are clearly plenty of references shown, and if mathematic nontability was irrelevant as you say that was seemingly the sole reason behind the deletion, and so maintaining the reasoning behind the deletion when referencing has since been found seems counterproductive. Robo37 (talk) 12:14, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, No. I don't understand anything after your first few lines because I'm not a mathematician and I'm not going to change the outcome of the DRV, relist or do anything else to alter the outcome. Some leeway on sources is not carte blanche to disregard that requirement at all and the onus is on you to find them, not expect others to do the looking for you. Generally, the DRV is the final stage and you need to accept the outcome. If you want to get this page back up, you have to find sources, get rid of all the original research and bring that back to DRV for review. If you need help, I suggest you approach the maths wikiproject and ask for help creating an acceptable article. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:17, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Robo37, the issue IMO is not whether the deletion should be endorsed.  There was unanimous opinion at DRV that the deletion from AfD should be endorsed.  Given the fact that at the AfD not a single editor documented an attempt to search for sources, and that IMO all of the arguments have been refuted, the AfD poses little resistance to actual evidence.  Also, I would have preferred that you had contacted the AfD closer before initiating the DRV.  That deficiency and the WP:OR in the opening argument IMO should have caused the DRV to be closed immediately, instead we were forced to proceed without a proper foundation for the discussion.  A better question is should the DRV have been closed with "endorse and restore".  Clearly, the closer felt that his opinion outweighed that of the participants at the DRV.  But my opinion is that he has made a legitimate WP:IAR decision that the article is so flawed that even though a consensus now exists for Wikipedia to have an article, that article doesn't exist, and so the best thing for the encyclopedia is to require that a decent article exist.  To this end, it is not even necessary for you to ask to have the previous article userfied.  You just need to write a new article.  If you search for [trigesimal] on Google books, IMO you will find plenty of sources.  Regards, Unscintillating (talk) 00:10, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Spartaz, it was not appropriate for me to give air to what appeared to me to be two personal attacks during the DRV.  It is common knowledge that the editor in question can't know what I have and what I haven't read without being a true prophet.  As a prophet, I know that he is a false prophet, given that I read the footnote in question more than once.  I also showed that every post on Wikipedia uses a sexagesimal variation of the 1494 Portuguese astronomer's notational method for trigesimal.  I would be happy to discuss this with UncleG.  Regards, Unscintillating (talk) 00:10, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could you modify this DRV closure to include a link to the relisted image at FFD? Thanks. --Lexein (talk) 06:44, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Its here I'm up to my ears in RL but you are welcome to add it in yourself. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:01, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]