User talk:Spartaz/Archive17

The DRV was for List of Power Rangers villains. You just put Mighty Morphin Power Rangers up at AFD.—Ryulong (琉竜) 08:09, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• script error already reverted. Sorry. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:12, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Saw the fix as I was saving. Would you mind restoring the original article's talk page as well?—Ryulong (琉竜) 08:24, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  No probs. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:28, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you.—Ryulong (琉竜) 08:34, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't feel like making a new header, are talk pages restored during DRV as well?—Ryulong (琉竜) 00:15, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• They can be if someone wants it but I personally rarely bother unless someone asks. Spartaz ^Humbug! 01:40, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again, no new header. Thank you for finally putting an end to this but I still think it's not exactly right to impinge the retention of this article based on the retention of the other. However, I will be coordinating a smerge project (but it will end up being to new central lists of all characters per season rather than all heroes and all villains on a single page). Would this still be in line with your close rationale?—Ryulong (琉竜) 14:09, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• That's fine, its an editorial decision how to use the content - Its just that we don't need two articles for the same thing. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:06, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  But there aren't two articles on the same thing. I mentioned this in one of the AFDs or DRVs or whatever. One's a list of every antagonists' names from 1993 to 2012. The other is a list of just 1993 to 1995 which is like a standard character list thing. The latter is a subset of the former (like "List of Star Trek characters" and "List of Star Trek: The Next Generation characters").—Ryulong (琉竜) 04:22, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi, I think your closure of the discussion about Villains in Mighty Morphin Power Rangers at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2013 January 15 was incorrect. You wrote: "With such a close headcount, I'm left with a little more discretion than usual in assessing the policy based arguments." I disagree. That applies to closing XfDs, not to DRVs. The instructions at WP:DRV provide: "If the administrator finds that there is no consensus in the deletion review, then in most cases this has the same effect as endorsing the decision being appealed. However, in some cases, it may be more appropriate to treat a finding of "no consensus" as equivalent to a "relist"". Consequently, finding no consensus in the DRV, you should not have acted on your own view about what the most appropriate outcome was, but should simply have found that there is no consensus to overturn the closer's judgment. Please consider changing your closure accordingly.  Sandstein  08:40, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • DRV tends to be much more of a head count than an AFD and usually the closing admin at DRV needs a damn good reason to ignore the numbers, where the numbers are closer the admin can look more closely at the policy arguments and that is precisely what I did. The numbers were with overturn anyway so I think the close is perfectly permissible given that I came to that conclusion after looking at the arguments and the discussions under debate. I think I probably take a less rules based approach to closing than you do so I can understand that you may find differently but that's why we allow admins some discretion to account for different approaches to the same thing. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:29, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Why did you delete the John B. Kimble article John B. KImble article was not properly deleted. I had submitted arguments of notability and a number of others had too. The article had been posted for many years. To give more weight to editors that work a lot on wikipedia seems dishonest at the least. So who do we appeal to now? 68.50.111.217 (talk) 20:05, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please see WP:CONSENSUS and WP:POLITICIAN. Policy based votes always carry more weight and its usual to give new users or single purpose accounts less weight in a close - it prevents non-wikipedians coming in and stacking votes by sheer numbers. Put it this way, if you are someone who devotes your own time to the project, bothers to learn the policies, adds content, don't you think its only right to give those users more say than people who are only interesting in wikipedia for promoting their own area of interest or publishing their pet article. If you want your votes to count more, register an account, learn the ropes and add content across a wide spectrum of interest. There is no further appeal. DRV is it. If you have new information you can register a new DRV at any time but its a waste of your time if you just repeat non-policy based arguments and I might close it early if there is absolutely no merit to the filing. Spartaz ^Humbug! 01:51, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • So in other words even though the person who first posted the article under a registered account said the article should stay, you guys just wanted it removed and acted with and arbitrary manner so that is all that is what it takes..a group of people gte together and decide to remove an interesting article and wham..gone regardless of merit of argument. Just wrong to me. I disagree about the single purpose accounts etc. The actions on this go against the purpose of wikipedia 68.50.111.217 (talk) 03:37, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • "So in other words.." is usually a prequel to recast what someone said into a form that doesn't reflect their meaning so you can beat them over the head about something they didn't say. And so it is again. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:16, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Ok, you must truly be British because you like to argue. lol So who do we appeal to now? I have looked at the history and the arguments and I still believe there was no consensus under wiki guidelines to remove the article. 68.50.111.217 (talk) 19:15, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think you quite get the idea of a collaborative working environment. If you are going to start every comment with a snide dig than you are severely reducing my interest in responding to you. Disagreeing with the closing admin isn't a reason to overturn. Perhaps you would be better placed explaining why you think my close was wrong based on a policy or guideline rather than just asserting I was wrong. Thanks. Spartaz ^Humbug! 02:51, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• No snide remark just curious when the evidence showed that the subject was notable in 2011 and that this deletion was premised upon the fact that the article had been recreated in 2011 which was not true. From looking at the history and the review it seemed to show that the consensus from people other than unknown editors was to keep the article and I can;t tell you if sockpuppetry even existed. I have heard that wikipedia has blocked entire states sometimes because of similar ip addresses. I would like to know the cost of living in England though. England seems like a beautiful land. Do we have to appeal to you or someone else to reconsider the deletion? Thanks68.50.111.217 (talk) 04:58, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The point of consensus if getting people to agree with you and you entirely failed there. The article was deleted five and half years ago at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/John_Kimble and a deletion review Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2011_February_2 two years ago relisted the discussion where there was no-consensus Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/John_B._Kimble. In the meantime, our attitude to BLPs has seriously hardened and the bar has risen significantly for marginally notable individuals. The last AFD Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/John_B._Kimble_(2nd_nomination) was closed in this new context and previous standards are entlrely irrelevent. The last AFD was seriously affected by sockpuppetry and it is therefore entirely reasonable for the closing admin to rely on the votes from established users. The relevant policy is WP:POLITICIAN which sets a high bar for individuals who have not won an election..
    

Syrthiss references POLITICIAN in the nomination. UKexpat agrees but the vote is rather metoo and I wouldn't give it much weight myself. Enos73 discussed why they feel the trivial and campaign related nature of the coverage means it doesn't reach the bar of GNG. Sjakkalle also reviews the coverage, discounts GNG as a factor and comments on the essence of politician in relation to this man. Sockpuppet votes are discarded and we are left with two IP editors whose votes rely on previous precedent (but consensus can change and is not binding) and also a smattering of personal attacks and bad faith against the motives of the delete voting editors. Frankly that's never going to fly when standards have changed so much and the closing admin could only have closed on delete given the clear policy based arguments on the delete side that reflect current project wide attitudes and standards.
The deletion review is there to consider whether the closing admin addresses policy correctly and weighs votes accordingly. There is a wide range of opinion around where the deletion threashold should be. This creates a grey area between obvious deletions and obvious keeps where the admin has to use their judgement around the implementation of the policy and the weighting of votes. Unless they have clearly allowed an incorrect interpretation of policy to cloud their close or manifestly get their weighting wrong it is unusual for DRV to overturn them and when you read the archive you will see a lot of reference to the closing admins discretion as a shorthand for this grey area I mentioned. DRV is more inclusionist than deletionist but tends to focus on process rather then the content. DRV does not review content and will refer cases back to AFD if a value judgement is required on content.
In this DRV I had the nomination from the deleting admin that explained the policy and weighting he had used. Then there was your vote which asserted the subject passed GNG, but as we see from the previous discussion this view didn't gain traction with the established votors and the consensus in the AFD is that GNG isn't met. Your other arguments were not policy based and would not count. See WP:ATA. Bwilkins reviewed the AFD and comments on the policy based argument being the deletion on. WP:ILIKEIT is specifically referenced in discarding the keep votes. Syrthiss comments that the DRV isn't the AFD and supports the close. The other IP editor just makes a load of irrelevant noise and bad faith accusations and nothing there is policy based. Badpuppy has 49 edits in 6 years and I have discarded the vote because of the prevelance of sockpuppetry and because they are refighting the AFD rather than reviewing the process and application of policy. Sjakkalle comments that newsworthy isn't the same as notable (indeed it isn't) and references the close against the policy. There is no policy based argument to overturn the deletion. Noone has shown that the closing admin has misapplied policy or incorrectly weighted votes. Accusations of poor judgement with no policy based argument are just noise. There can be no other outcome beyond endorsing. I'm afraid that's the end of the process.There is no more appeal. DRV is the appeal and you lost.Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:35, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't agree' , In my opinion when the original article was deleted back in 2006/7 and then recreated the article then was notable and should have stayed that way. An argument that I can make as one of the first editors of the article is that in 2011 an admin/editor from England with multiple names/ids posted arguments similar to yours and it does seem that the article was removed because of politician and not notability which was improper. You should be able to understand where some of us may think that some nefarious act took place with some "Londoners" getting together to rein supreme on an article. Sufficient argument could be made that sockpuppetry existed in those supporting deletion and that those votes should have been discounted totally too. Was the article subject notable? Yes. Was he notable as a politician? Probably not except he won his first primary and only spent five hundred dollars versus a man that spent sixty thousand dollars. In my opinion if policy is followed as per 2007 standards when the article was placed then the article should be back on Wikipedia. I am sure we will discuss this further at some point in time. Badpuppy99 (talk) 03:29, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Unfortunately for that argument we don't live in 2006 anymore. That's ancient history in wikipedia terms and we didn't have BLP then or as settled an inclusion threashold as we do now. Life moves on and so does wikipedia, so our standards evolve too. A FA in 2006 wouldn't have a hope in 2013 and quite right too. We are far more rigorous now then we were then.... Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:18, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• After reviewing the "consensus review" described on wikipedia it does seem that this removal was made by a few people and that the article was removed improperly. The article still met general notability guidelines and I guess that we will just have to find a senior editor/admin to glean information to see if the article was improperly removed. But thanks anyway.Badpuppy99 (talk) 17:50, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good luck with that. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:58, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the luck. I will keep trying and hopefully some of the other people will request undeletion too. Badpuppy99 (talk) 03:48, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• While you state that policy has changed under the consensus review clearly shows that the article should have not been removed pursuant to "policy". Now some may have taken offense at me stating that "Londoners" were to blame and what you have to understand is that in 2011 the main arguments were made by a man that said he was from London and used multiple names to say delete. There was no offense meant to you or others unless you were indeed that other individual who had the multiple names. I hope that explains the umbrage towards the "Londoner". No bad faith meant and the article should have not been removed based on general notability guidelines. Have a nice weekend.Badpuppy99 (talk) 07:51, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You closed the discussion, so we would see how the FFD of one image resulted. It was "delete", so I wonder if you can relist images or reopen the discussion. --George Ho (talk) 23:25, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Are we not expecting the image to come back to DRV? Lets give it a day or so and then I'm going to put up a proposal at DRV/FFD about how to handle them. Spartaz ^Humbug! 02:42, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

teri maan ki choot behen chod good articles ko delete karta haey Bharwey Madar Chod Gaaandoooooooo Dalley behen ki choot maarnay waley Harami dalley pilley — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.103.228.201 (talk) 02:12, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm sorry but I don't understand a word of that. I'm happy to discuss whatever seems to be bothering you but I'm afraid I can only follow messages in English, Russian and limited Danish. Spartaz ^Humbug! 02:42, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure that I understand this re-creation after a WP:DRV discussion in November, closed as 'Endorse'. What is the rationale for this? Elizium23 (talk) 20:00, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• It's new text so G4 doesn't apply but the sourcing is still substandard. I suggest you list this at AFD again and let me know if it gets deleted so I can lock the page against recreation. Spartaz ^Humbug! 01:55, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I confirm that I have requested an account on the UTRS tool. Spartaz ^Humbug!

I've activated your account, thanks for volunteering.--v/r - TP 03:47, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Diff. Thank you, that was a nice thing to say.—S Marshall T/C 20:46, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! All I really wanted to see content what was deleted on Talk:iPad 3 prior to redirect is this version: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:IPad_3&oldid=480696490

A deleting administrator clearly did not check for the page history, and should have reverted back to the above version. Since he would not immediately respond to the matter and is inactive, could you go back and save it rather than fixing a redirect? Thank you! --24.6.164.7 (talk) 07:53, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Its all there under the redirect. If you are struggling to find it. Open the page and the redirect kicks in. Got to the very top of target page and the location of the redirect is shown in small blue letters under the page title. Click on that and you will be back at the redirect. Across the top of that page will be a tab marked view history. If you click on that you can see all the previous page versions and can navigate to the revision you want to see the content. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:34, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I did. The link in question above is an old version of that talk page I want to revert to as the current version. Redirect on article's talk page should not redirect, and thus is unnecessary.[1] What I am talking about this is Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2013 January 24. While I requested for history undeletion there, I was entirely unaware of which nonexistent target the page redirected to. As you restored the page, it was previously dependent on Talk:IPad (3rd Generation) as redirect was suppressed by page move. This is all why I was asking for reason why was CSD G8. Do you have objection to restoring a non-redirect version? --24.6.164.7 (talk) 22:37, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Frankly I couldn't care less. Personally I can't see the point unless you want to discuss the redirect now but if its important to you, there is no harm in undoing the redirect. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:10, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Spartaz - this is to notify you that there is a discussion starting on the Article Feedback RfC talkpage that has ramifications for the RfC itself. Your input is much appreciated :). Thanks! and apologies if I've missed anyone Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:48, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just a little love-bomb: You kick arse. Thoughtful, polite, "gets it", you're just an all-around good wikipedian. - 124.168.72.151 (talk) 08:54, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank your the compliment but I'm not sure that everyone would agree with that. ;-) Is there a particular edit/action that prompted this? Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:43, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing specific, just the gradual accumulation positive thoughts. Looking semi-randomly through your contributions just now, Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2013 January 21 is a good example: Nothing earth-shattering, just clear and well-reasoned communication with both humour and respect. - 124.168.72.151 (talk) 11:27, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Hello, I merged your changes to the updated version of the article that I had in my sandbox: FolderSize. There is a lot of work done in that article so I hope you will agree on editing it instead of completely ignoring it. Please note that license to use the image in the article is granted by MindGems and confirmed by Wikipedia editor. The article is updated with extra references that are newer than the review in PCWorld. Please note that the things for speed and missing stuff from that outdated article are already fixed or implemented in the version 2.9.0.0 of the tool while the article relates to version 1.2.0.0. The revised article that I have uploaded is written in an objective way without leaning towards promotion of any kind. Even though the quotation that you have added from PCWorl about the tool being "cumbersome" is not longer valid I have merged it in the article. If you think something should be revised please feel free to do it. Allancass (talk) 21:39, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Moved this discussion here Talk:FolderSize
• please don't put talkpage templates up telling me that I have a message here. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:43, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why you removed the text of Jessica Dykstra's article. It was my understanding that the article was restored in order to allow others to read the article, and determine whether or not she is notable.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 17:08, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, but the text is available in the history. A temp undelete isn't intended to bring the article back but to make the history available. The state I have left the article is the one that we would expect for something at DRV. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:06, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK. I hope no one thinks that I was being disruptive by reinserting the text. It was an honest error. --J.S.
• No worries. Spartaz ^Humbug! 01:16, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I redid the page (in my Sandbox) that was deleted at your request recently. I am hoping you could look at it and see if it is ok this time. I made the article less promotional and found another source to reference the facts that I first got from the website. Link to article: LIMS

If you have questions or advise, would you please put them here or in my talkpage? Thanks. Sandra (talk) 21:14, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm afraid the sources don't look good enough for me. Have you read general notability and reliable sourcing? They are a good starting point for understanding what will survive as an article. Spartaz ^Humbug! 02:34, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I have read them, and I still think they are notable enough. Can you please elaborate what is not notable enough to your opinion in this specific case? Thanks Sandra (talk) 08:42, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • References 1 & 2 are not independant and don't count. Reference 3 is a listing with no critical commentary so isn't a userful reliable source and while 4 is a little better it is essentially another listing without the expected depth for a reliable source that we could use to assess notability. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:20, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you accidentally deleted someone else's comments at RFAR. It was reverted, but I just wanted to let you know that it happened. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 22:43, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you. I have already apologised to Ken. Spartaz ^Humbug! 01:15, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just a brief pop in to say thanks. Thanks! — LlywelynII 17:54, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You closed the DRV of Category:Native American actors who performed in a Native American language as relist. Don't you think, that the category should be undeleted in this case? Regards, Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 12:56, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I have no idea how to do that and its not necessary for the CfD. They can manage without it. If its closed as retain then someone will create it. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:03, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

3abos (talk) 03:34, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The mark for deletion is found at the following link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FHighland_Superstore

A Google Search of "Highland Superstore" will yield much info on the company. Thanks, Jim — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.113.57.165 (talk) 17:00, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While I appreciate your comments, the Evidence page closed on the 8th, and the Workshop closed on the 15th, so it's really a bit late now. :-( --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:58, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• l'm always late. Sorry. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:17, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm hardly an expect on Arbcom (this case has been my first real exposure to the process), but I think you could still post your comment on one of the talk pages (for either the Evidence page or the Workshop page). --Orlady (talk) 19:38, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Highland Superstores should not have been deleted. You can find info on it at http://www.nytimes.com/1993/03/17/business/company-news-highland-superstores-to-liquidate-assets.html, http://www.accessmylibrary.com/article-1G1-11749667/why-highland-tumbled-downfall.html, http://www.bloomberg.com/quote/HIGH:US/profile, http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1993-03-16/news/9303170073_1_bankruptcy-saddened-customers along with numerous others, including old TV commercials .. just Google it. I used to shop there for many years (my washer/dryer were bought at Highland Appliance Superstores, 24 years ago and still working). It's info should not have been deleted. It's a Detroit icon and part of our history. What's next, you're going to delete Wikipedia from the history books if it goes under, even though we all know it existed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.227.81.40 (talk) 22:41, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• You will have to help me here, there is no history or deleted article at HIghland Superstores and I can't see anything connected to them in your deleted contributions history. Can you point me in the direction of the page that was deleted or the deletion discussion so I can revisit this for you? Thanks. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:27, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I found the mark for deletion at the following link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FHighland_Superstore

The original page redireds to Highland Appliance, which was deleted in November 2007: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highland_Appliance

A Google Search of "Highland Superstore" will yield much info on the company.

Also, I need to ask .. Many things on Wikipedia come from first hand experience. Thanks, Jim — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.113.57.165 (talk) 17:10, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The article that was deleted said its entireity " Highland Superstore was a chain of large stores located in the Chicago area.". I have no objection to creating a new article. The AFD was over 5 years ago and the page was at the wrong title so that's probably why the sources didn't emerge when we looked at it. If you need help creating the page, just ask. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:38, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You closed the Ziron DRV at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2013 February 15 but the temporarily resurrected page is still there and protected even against tagging for CSD. Can you delete it, please? Msnicki (talk) 06:30, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Done. Thanks. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:38, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of military commanders, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Boughey (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:32, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Just before you gave protection to South Indian film industry page a revert was made from an IP 116.202.122.195 changing the word Kochi to Kerala. Now the statement looks out-of-place, as all the associated newspaper citations mention Kochi! Could you let me know whether I am allowed to correct it through an edit, at this stage? That was the form in which South Indian film industry page existed for last 9 months or so, before these edits and reverts started couple of days back. As discussed in the talk page therein, this has everything to do with reported edit war in Malayalam cinema page. Also would like to bring to your notice that the same has been done by the same IP 116.202.122.195, in Cinema of India page. I edited and changed this back to what existed with citations. Prathambhu (talk) 17:50, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• yes go ahead/ Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:09, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, wondering why you made this revert? Thanks - KillerChihuahua 16:24, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I did? Crickey! Must be fat finger on the table syndrome again. I must loose some weight in my index finger... How embaressing. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:27, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's ok, it's happened to me before too. I fixed it, no worries. KillerChihuahua 16:29, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And you fixed it too! lol @ the two of us colliding trying to fix an accident. KillerChihuahua 16:37, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, happens to everybody. No worries.Malke 2010 (talk) 17:59, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very surprised to receive your notice of an accomplished deletion. When I first proposed the article, I submitted it for review. On 18 February 2013, I was informed that it was created, which I assumed to be accepted. It read,

"Irene A. Bradford, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page.

If the issue was one of improving the quality, I am an experienced writer and am eager to promote quality research and writing. I am happy to incorporate suggestions. I appreciate Wikipedia's position on documentation and written communication. I am relatively new to Wikipedia, but had hoped to continue my contributions. Maineshepp (talk) 16:02, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I haven't deleted the article - its back at Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Irene_A._Bradford. The user who accepted the article has had problems with moving stuff into mainspace before its quite ready and the risk is that articles won't survive if they are not ready before they go in the article space. You need to trim the text a lot. The tone is too conversational and isn't the style we need for an encyclopedia article. You just need to stick to plain facts without the editorial or folksy filler - the next phase of her life etc. Just remove them and drop me a line and I'll be happy to review the text. Good luck. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:30, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a revision. Tried to streamline and delete. Thanks. Maineshepp (talk) 16:46, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh, that's much better and I can pull the facts out very easily now. I'm in two minds about whether this meets our inclusion criteria but if you are willing to risk it being challenged I'll be happy to put it back to mainspace. The reason I ask is that deletion discussions can be very stressful for new users and if there is any chance of beefing up the sources it might be better to do that first. Let me know what you think. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:40, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the encouragement. I would like you to move it back. There's a strong group of interest in the person here, and they are already "fans" of the article. I will myself travel to the local historical society and library in Patten (when the snow melts) to see what they have. Meanwhile, that would give others a chance to contribute if they have sources. Maineshepp (talk) 12:29, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An article whose deletion you endorsed[2] yesterday was recreated today by the same user that started the DRV[3] along with a similar title[4](possibly a redirect of the deleted article) as a redirect to Anti-Serb sentiment. The refusal to accept consensus is also linked with an ongoing feud between the user that started the DRV and another user[5]. As far as I'm concerned both users must be constrained as their inability to deal with consensus, proper argumentation and constructive editing has become very disruptive. I've left the same exact message on the talkpage of the admin, who originally deleted it.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 18:17, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• There was a clear strand to the discussion that a neutral article could be possible if it was reflective of proper sources. I'm no expert on this but the structure and content does not appeat to be identical and the focus of the article is different. On that basis, there is no reason for me to intervene with this new article. DRV is not dispute resolution. If you are unhappy with this new article, there is no reason why you could not initiate an AFD. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:04, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I left a comment at this talk page DGG ( talk ) 06:33, 8 March 2013 (UTC) .[reply]

• Hmm, that was far more constructive then my comment. I'm quite limited for time these days but I'd be happy to help you work through this list to try and help the salvagable ones... Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:48, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In 2012, I closed 12 AFDs, of which only one was a delete. For the most part I was not an admin during 2012 but nevertheless, have I suddenly turned into an inclusionist? Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:47, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You closed the DRV for Murray River Curly Coated Retriever at WP:Deletion review/Log/2013 February 20. During the discussion, User:Thor Dockweiler pasted the entire article to the DRV, but User:Bduke removed it immediately (history, combined diff). When you closed the DRV and deleted the article, WP:Copying within Wikipedia#Reusing deleted material became relevant. Would you be willing to revision delete the single infringing revision? Please be aware that there is no consensus on always RD1'ing copyvio in page histories, and users tend to take CWW issues less seriously than copyvio of external sites. Thanks. Flatscan (talk) 05:25, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I personally of the view that there is no need to revdel if the material has been removed from the final version of the discussion. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:24, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your reply. I will probably raise the revision as a discussion case, as revdel would have minimal impact on the page history, and the article text has zero utility in the history of a DRV log. Flatscan (talk) 05:15, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Spartaz,

First of all, thank you for taking the time to review my article regarding ikman.lk.

Can I know why you decided to delete this article? I had taken the time to draft the article as per Wikipedia's guidelines, added only verifiable citations, and submitted it for review.

The article was reviewed by two independent editors, the first one of whom declined the entry, and was finally approved and accepted by the second reviewer after several changes were done to remove promotional overtones.

I would greatly appreciate your response, and would like to see this article restored.

Many thanks.Raad17 (talk) 05:27, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The user who accepted the article was not following the correct standards and has been asked (told) to stand back from AFC as a result. I felt that the article wasn't suitable for mainspace and was promotional, but I'd be happy to put it back in AFC space for you to work on and try and get it to a more encyclopedic tone before asking for further review. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:26, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, please do. Also I would greatly appreciate your feedback regarding what needs to be changed in order for the article to be acceptable, and exactly which sections particularly convey promotional intent (if any). Thank you very much.Raad17 (talk) 12:53, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Later today or tomorrow, OK? Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:10, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Looking forward to it! Much appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raad17 (talk • contribs) 16:48, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Dear Spartaz, any updates? Thanks in advance...Raad17 (talk) 10:29, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Been at work all day and only just got home. My daughter is sick so I'm going to have RL for .It will happen, but I have to have some time free first. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:02, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Sorry to hear that Spartaz, I wish her a speedy recovery. Do let me know once you have restored the article, so I can work on it. Thanks again. Raad17 (talk) 05:09, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • Its back at AFC and I have declined the last request, Basically this article is all about the efforts to promote it rather then detailed independent coverage about the actual site. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:13, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • Spartaz, thanks a lot for your detailed feedback. I have now revised the article, adding in more detailed information about the site itself (usage statistics) and have removed the press section entirely. A note regarding the citations, I have primarily focused on references from Sri Lankan Newspapers, which are amongst the most widely accepted and reliable sources of information in Sri Lanka. Would greatly appreciate if you could take another look at the article draft, and let me know if this version merits acceptance. Many thanks.Raad17 (talk) 05:17, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                • • Probably the best thing to do now would be to put up another review request and let someone review this with fresh eyes. Thanks. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:57, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Hi Spartaz, what's your opinion regarding it? If you do feel that the article is in an acceptable state now, I would be very grateful if you could accept it yourself, rather than having to add it to the review queue again (which can take days before a response). Please help me out, if possible? Very much appreciated, thank you.
                    • Hi there, sorry to disturb you - just wanted to know your decision with regards to my request above. Will respect your opinion either way - thank you for all your feedback, and helping me better my Wikipedia skills! A Barnstar for you :)Raad17 (talk) 20:00, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I moved your collapse slightly so that a side issue of an editor closing the discussion while under restrictions can be discussed: [7]. I hope that's ok, IRWolfie- (talk) 10:51, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

	The Admin's Barnstar
	You've made several smart decisions today in a very polite way to reduce the drama all around. I hope it works. Good job. v/r - TP 12:57, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am writing in regards to the wiki page for the band Human Factors Lab. This page cans under attack in 2010 by former band members citing it was not notable. We believe Human Factors Lab meets all requirements to have a wiki page. What can be done to re instate,or recreate a page for Human Factors Lab? Here is some basic info. Human Factors Lab is an Industrial Metal band based out of Orlando, Florida. Established in 2004 ,Touring Nationally since 2006 . Independently released 3 full length albums and 2 EP's. We have also independently toured the United States and Canada 11 times. As a live band Human Factors Lab is known for their highly visual imagery and sometimes bizarre stage shows they are armed to the teeth with crunch guitars, live keyboard arrangements,pulse pounding drums,and aggressive vocals

NOTABLE TOURS :

-Support for Mushroomhead-

April , 2008 October, 2008 December, 2011 -Support for KMFDM- August, 2011

DISCOGRAPHY : Plastik : 2004 - 10,000 sold Pap3r : 2008 - 28,000 sold L1V3 : 2009 - 600 downloads (digital only / limited time release)

We All Fall Down (EP) : 2011 - 1,700 sold

The Blade (EP) : October, 2012 The Blood (EP) : March, 2013

We are currently in the process of releasing a new series of EP's to eventually be combined to form a full length album entitled "The Suicide Diaries" produced by Chris Vrenna, best known as drummer for Nine Inch Nails and Marilyn Manson, as well as his own project called Tweaker. We did the recording at the world famous KDS Studios in Orlando, FL. This studio gave the band access to cutting-edge technology and equipment as well as staff that are no strangers to breeding successful artists. It was formerly known as TransContinental Studios where many of the Orlando Pop bands such as NSYNC, Backstreet Boys and Britney Spears got their start. We are recording vocal tracks and conducting final mixes at Chris Vrenna's personal studio in Los Angeles, CA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sevensevensevenseven (talk • contribs)

• We? Please read our advice on editing through a conflict of interest and warnings about using wikipedia for promotion. If you are connected to the band you should really not be having anything to do with your own article. Allow someone-else whose hand's are clean to do it. If you honestly feel an article is justified you need to read band guidelines and general notability. If you do not clear these easily I can't see how an admittedly COI editor is going to persude the community we want to host the page. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:00, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I came across this Allied Artists International article by searching the history of editors of Yasheng Group and Silk Route Museum, which appear to be articles written with no source establishing notability, and without a single reliable source for any of the content. It appears the Allied Artists article was deleted for lack of notability.[8] But now the article is back up, with the same claims of being a historic movie company, and not a single reliable source supporting it. When I tried to re-nominate for deletion, I got redirected http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2013_April_9#Allied_Artists_International here]. Why is this article back up again, with the same claims, all without proper sources? How can it be nominated back into the deletion it was properly sent into? Thanks. KatieBoundary (talk) 20:53, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am posting this at the admin noticeboard. If I am posting it in the wrong place, please let me know. KatieBoundary (talk) 21:10, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see this has resolved itself but a few points for the future to help you avoid misunderstandings:-

This was recreated with permission from the admin who last deleted it. As a fresh article its allowed to have its chance.

You create AFDs by starting a designated page for the discussion and listing that page on the log. You can't list by adding to the log as its simply a bunch of transclusions. (A transclusion is a page being added to another page through a template tag {{page name}}). That page then appears on the log page as if it were part of it but the discussion is actually on a separate page. If you want to list something at AFD its best to use Twinkle as it automates all the steps.

As you found here, a bit more research would have saved you all the effort as you satisfied yourself this was notable.

I hope this is helpful. Let me know if this doesn't make sense. (Lots of things on wikipedia don't make sense). Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:43, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. KatieBoundary (talk) 13:58, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I added a Controversy section, and sourced it with reliable sources cited by many other established editors in the talk page. It was deleted[9]. Can you check if my edit should be kept in the article, and add it back in if it should be in? Thanks. KatieBoundary (talk) 15:12, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I added a section to the Colton Cosmic discussion at ANI, asking whether it would be productive to allow CC access to his talk page. His edits since the unblock have seemed reasonable (or more so than is typical), and the issue was not touched on in the discussion over whether to reblock or not. I am not going to rescind the talk page lock, though I guess I could since I put it in place originally, but I do want to see if it's worth discussing. Since you relocked the page, I wanted to let you know that I had asked the question. No concerns about the reblock, as there was clear consensus for it (and I happen to agree with it). Thanks! UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:20, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not personally wedded to the page lock. Its simply what was there before. I don't have any issues at all if you want to undo it. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:54, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Given that CC spent six months fishing by email for an admin to unblock him as well as sending angry emails to myself and several other admins, I would suggest that email be revoked. He can still email BASC directly, which is what the consensus favored. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:06, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't you think that might look a little punitive at this point? I don't feel strongly about this myself but wouldn't object to someone else doing it. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:15, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see i as punitive at all, he has a history of misusing the email function (that's how this whole recent mess go started after all) so it seems to me it would serve a legitimate preventative purpose. However, because he decided to make things personal I would probably be considered involved so I can't do it myself. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:45, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

{done} Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:20, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Block log

Hey, sorry to keep bugging you about this but as this is now a community-imposed block and Colton has made it abundantly clear in his remarks that he believes he can simply go back to fishing for a single admin in the future, would it not be a good idea to make an entry in the block log noting that it is in fact a community imposed ban and as such should not be lifted by any one admin? Normally I would count on the common courtesy of discussing the issue with the blocking admin first, but gicven the cowboy adminning in this case that seems not to be a safe assumption. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:18, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm afraid I don't see consensus for a community ban but I hope most will see this as defacto without a consensus to unblock. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:20, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, yeah, meant to say block, not ban. Looks like he's already evaded the block as well. Not that I am the least bit surprised by that, he can't seem to understand how he is his own worst enemy sometimes. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:36, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. The thread is Unblocking Colton Cosmic. Yunshui 雲‍水 18:30, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Never has the image at the top of your talkpage looked more apt... Yunshui 雲‍水 18:30, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose you're right about the unblock + edit filter business. When I did this previously there was little issue about it, but I hadn't encountered anyone who posted as prolifically or badgered opposers as much as CC in the AN thread. It appears consensus is against its use in general, so I will avoid doing so in the future. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:13, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please reverse your closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Wikipedia controversies. You closed it after barely two hours had elapsed, without even giving several of the article's editors a chance to comment. That's grossly premature. Prioryman (talk) 23:08, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You know what, forget it. I've listed it at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2013 April 16. Comment there if you wish. Prioryman (talk) 23:18, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You gave me a whole 10 minutes to respond during my night-time. Classy. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:53, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Spartaz, thanks for following through with a block for GoodDay. I've added the block the logs on the case page for you. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:09, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So it comes down to this? Since there's few people participating in deletion discussions, subjective points of policy are to be decided solely on the whims of the closing administrator? When did that happen? Diego (talk) 06:28, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• It's been this way since at least early 2007 when I started to participate at DRV. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:48, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How can you delete the article in my sandbox when there wasn't a consensus about it? The article should go to AFD, not deleted. GroundRisk (talk) 19:43, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I already addressed that in my close of the discussion. I get that you don't agree but you also don't get to insist on the framing of any discussion. Spartaz ^Humbug! 02:17, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Civilization Jihad. 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. Mr T^(Talk?) (New thread?) 07:57, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

–Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:46, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind explaining why you are going around deleting my comments this morning? Prioryman (talk) 11:10, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oops! Please accept my apologies. Fat finger on tablet syndrome again I think. IIRC I was trying to open your comment on Jimbo's watchlist and the screen was jumping everywhere between your contribs and my watchlist. Must have been collatoral damage. Sorry for this. I'll have to stop using the damn thing for my wikipedia fix. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:17, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hah! I know exactly what you mean - I've had the same thing happen to me on a mobile phone screen. Thanks for the explanation! Prioryman (talk) 12:42, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Spartaz. I've replied at User_talk:Mazca#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion.2FMiyoko_Akashi - no problem if you do want to DRV that article. Best wishes ~ mazca ^talk 17:21, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi; I think protecting this page is very premature, since there's no vandalism occurring and IP users have been contributing, as with any other breaking news article. Please see my comments at Talk:2013_Cleveland,_Ohio,_missing_trio#Page_protected_already.3F. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 17:31, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please explain this revert? There's no edit summary, so I'm not sure why you reverted it. If it was because one of the edits was placed in the thread, that was due to an edit conflict. The other edit was pointing out a serious BLP problem with another editor's suggestion, and certainly shouldn't have been reverted. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 19:14, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. Looks like tablet browsing strikes again. :-/ Spartaz ^Humbug! 02:07, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, no worries then. I imagined it was something along those lines, but wanted to make sure. :) – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 03:02, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the context established by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Susumu Shibata, may I ask you to to take a look at two related articles. I wonder how to measure consensus opinion about Tsukasa Kawada‎ and List of Ambassadors from Japan to Algeria‎? --Ansei (talk) 17:32, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Whitney Miller requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, 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 from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. 62.65.228.185 (talk) 18:37, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since you have withdrawn the DRV gracefully after being outvoted this time, I thought I'd give a note of appreciation generally. I have very much welcomed your frequent closing of DRVs in what seems to me to be a thoughtful and sensible way and for giving your reasoning. You are possibly more willing to see a consensus when I would see uncertainty but I rather strongly suspect that your approach is closer to mainstream. And I also think it has been helpful when you have expedited things a bit although not to the extent of curtailing discussion of dubious speedy deletions even when the article would likely be doomed at a subsequent AfD. As for how AfD votes concerning notability should be weighted, I think if an article fails GNG, etc. then it may well be sufficient for a !delete simply to specify how this is the case in the present instance. However to !keep a "failing" article should be an entirely legitimate argument (and, indeed, a policy-based one) provided coherent reasons are given why this is beneficial to WP. I don't even see this as IAR but rather that the guidelines are there to guide our thoughts and not to make contrary opinions illegitimate. I'll see you again soon at DRV! Thincat (talk) 09:51, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• In RL I have a job that requires weighting of conflicting evidence and its not allowed to wimp out by saying that the outcome isn't clear and I suppose its only natural that this bleeds through to my wikilife. Thank you though for your kind words and general support. I do think the project consensus has tended towards hardening expectations around inclusion but giving a poor article a chance does have a long history on the project. I do appreciate your note as I was feeling a bit down after judging the consensus on that article so incorrectly. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:08, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your sensible comments regarding my DRV request. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:01, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I've indicated elsewhere, I endorse your (Spartaz's) resolution of this matter. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:58, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here to say the same thing. Good close. Hobit (talk) 16:06, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"A9. No indication of importance (musical recordings). An article about a musical recording that has no corresponding article about its recording artist and does not indicate why its subject is important or significant (both conditions must be met). This is distinct from questions of verifiability and reliability of sources, and is a lower standard than notability. This criterion does not apply to other forms of creative media, products, or any other types of articles."

So exactly what of the above does not apply to the article in the title? There is no article on the band. An unreferenced claim to being "the most critically acclaimed of his albums" really says nothing without the offer of some review, and the article states it is his debut album. By definition, it has to be his most critically acclaimed and that could truthfully be said even if the only person that ever heard it was his girlfriend and she said she liked it. What have I missed? If this doesn't qualify, then why is A9 even there? Gtwfan52 (talk) 07:41, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CSD is there for uncontroversial deletions in very narrow terms. The issue is the statement It is the most critically acclaimed of his albums. That counts as a claim to significance and would be accepted by Deletion Review. It doesn't mean that the claim has to be credible. Just that there has to be a claim. Without the claim I would have happily deleted it. This clearly is an article that doesn't pass muster but ask yourself, do we want to get rid of it with the minimum of fuss or shall we process obsess at DRV for a week before listing it for another week plust relists and then deleting it? Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:47, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DUDE. GIVE ME BACK THE FIRST DEGREE THE D.E. PAGE I MADE. ITS IMPORTANT. HE'S A LEGEND.

Why did you delete it? If you did delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jespon (talk • contribs) 20:32, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, I gave you evidence!! What the fuck

I'm not dude and please don't swear on my talk page. I have young children who don't need ti read this over my shoulder. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:02, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Maureen Barton-Chitty, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Olympic (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 00:27, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have been interacting with Apteva for a short while at this article AC/DC (electricity). Yes The article has a bad name for it's content but the lede describes what the article is about quite clearly and it has been the same since inception in 2008. Discussion are underway to change the title. Several times editors have attempted to inject other equipment topics into the article, broadening it's scope, and not complying with the original intent and against the lede description. All attempts have been reverted and walls of talk page discussions have ensued explaining this to each talker or in edit histories. Lately a very persistent and disruptive editor arrived and began the same agenda and was corrected that the title wasn't very well suited for the equipment being discussed. This editor has attempted many techniques to push this agenda despite all warnings there and linked in AC/DC (disambiguation) pages etc. When no advances could be made fellow editors with very similar editing habits and same varied topic article edits, began to arrive and create the same disrupting types of edits at the talk page and the article. 65.94.76.126 and Apteva were the two of them, issuing warning on people's talk pages, constantly injecting off topic discussions into article name change sections and were scolded several times by various participants. Meat or sockpuppetry may be quite possible there but several attempts at AN were ignored or evaporated. The slow editwarring continues on the article page were the latest attempts at changing the lede description has been attempted during consensus not to do that. I was wondering if you would have some time to look at some of this. I am tired of the constant poking and harassment proding from this trio (well one account is gone for a spell) and can't do the stress any more. Thanks for any advise you can give there. 174.118.142.187 (talk) 03:02, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry, I'm not going to get embroiled into a content dispute on a subject I have no interest in. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:51, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You think it is a content dispute? Thanks anyway. 174.118.142.187 (talk) 20:27, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The page "AC/DC (electricity)" has been moved to AC/DC receiver design. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:43, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I am writing a new article on this band and already I found three sources with non-trivial (substantial ) coverage and waiting for a copy of a fourth from Germany. Are you fine with me moving it into the main space now or do you want me to do it once I get the German source? WhisperToMe (talk) 13:53, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• You will have to remind me what you are asking about. Do you have a link to the draft? Thanks. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:49, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's about the Danish C64 band. The draft is at User:WhisperToMe/Press Play On Tape. I quote from the sources partly to demonstrate that they have significant coverage. The old AFD is at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Press_Play_on_Tape. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:04, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are the sources more detailed then the quotes? I'm not dying in a ditch over an AFD that is more than 2 years old and if you are confident that the sourcing has improved I'd be inclined to just see how it goes back in mainspace.Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:22, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, they are more detailed. I think the sourcing has been well-established so I'll move it in and see how it goes :) WhisperToMe (talk) 19:28, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy! I put your relist comment at the top of the AfD in an {{mbox}}. Without it, your comment ran into the previous entry on the daily log. Hope you don't mind! Cheers, Stalwart111 15:09, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• No, that's absolutely fine thanks. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:22, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You do realize, of course, that you just made a controversial SNOW close at DRV to overturn a controversial SNOW close at AfD, making the argument that controversial SNOW closes are a bad idea... Tee hee... Carrite (talk) 17:11, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes. Except my controversial snow close will ultimately reduce the time it takes to end this so that harmony and contentment will return again to wikipedia. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:18, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Only if the DRV were to close as Overturn-and-Relist, which is not my reading of the consensus developing. You made a more controversial Speedy close which is going to extend the process... Carrite (talk) 17:31, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Think it through. Who is most likely to be closing that DRV?? Based on recent practise it will be me. The bias at DRV is to look closely at process and not consider sources - that always gets referred back to AFD and the DRV closer has discretion to relist at any time whatever the state of the discussion. The ultimate issue is that there are questions about the sources that need discussing and not relisting would leave them open until an inevitable AFD 3. DRV is good at process obsessing but, ultimately, there will be no peace on the article until the issues with the sources have been resolved one way or the other. What's better? A needless debate about process or getting straight down to talking about content against policy. I know which one I would prefer and which one will ultimately resolve this. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:39, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was a well-reasoned close, Spartaz. Thank you for taking the time to explain. I don't have an opinion on the timing, but I guess it was reasonable to close at any time since the original AfD close was in error, any possible doubt about that was removed by the 2nd AfD nom and comments, and there was no conceivable argument that could have been advanced to refute that. It's pretty depressing to see people voting to endorse anyway. Including NewYorkBrad, an arbitrator (!), but I suppose he was just caught off guard on his way to the AfD and didn't think things through. Anyway, props to you. Herostratus (talk) 03:17, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I came here to say what Carrite just said. So, +1. :)—S Marshall T/C 10:50, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well there isn't much to say to that except to refer you the explanation above. We are however now discussing content against policy and not process wankery, so overall I'd say it does what I intended. I think its important to be consistent too and a less contentious article in these circumstances would have been relisted too.Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:57, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't disagree with the decision, mate, it's just that the irony made me chuckle.  :)—S Marshall T/C 11:30, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ah gotcha. I misunderstood which comment you were +1ing to... All good then. :-) Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:17, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding edits on the SPI archive. Thank you. 18:37, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

But I went ahead and used your image over at my CERFC page. I know it's kind of pointless to be filling it out at this point (phase #2 of CERFC has long since ended), but I figured there might still be use for the survey in the future. If nothing else, it'll give people some insight into my perspectives. Kurtis ^(talk) 15:29, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tito Dutta  (talk • contributions • email) 12:23, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Please check this comment and his contribution Special:Contributions/86.151.237.220. He has started editing tomorrow and editing in problematic articles. Do you think yesterday's three blocks are related here? --Tito Dutta  (talk • contributions • email) 15:01, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Mrt3366 could like to have a dialogue with you on his talk page and hence has asked me to bring this message to you. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 18:07, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• It's just above! And see that IP too! --Tito Dutta  (talk • contributions • email) 18:17, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see an unresolved block request and I'm of the opinion that another admin can look at this from here on. Also, like everyone else I'm a volunteer and I'm not spending my limited wiki-time on sorting out MrT's need while he is justifiably blocked. Thank you for your understanding. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:21, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You recently blocked that user.right know a serious Edit Warring is continued on his talk page User talk:Darkness Shines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.77.165.233 (talk) 13:08, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The edit warring is by you. DS is within his rights to remove your comment and you are not allowed to edit war to force it back on. I emi protected his page to end this. You made you comment and can stop now. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:13, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A while back I created an article about a model named Jessica Dykstra. He article was reviewed and deleted. You were part of the debate. Anyway, she's going to be on Jimmy Kimmel Live tonight. Does that bring her to the level of notability that her article can be restored?--Johnny Spasm (talk) 02:27, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Presumably you will be looking for some reliable sources that follow the appearance. If you can find some we can discuss, but appearing doesn't count as interviews are primary sources. On the other hand, if someone writes about the appearance then that is a secondary source and we can look at the context of the source to see if it pushes her over the line. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:23, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Spartaz. Eight days looks long enough for the transgression and we've, between us, unblocked the other side of the equation anyway. Any objections if I unblock DS? --regentspark (comment) 14:57, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm a firm believer in escalating blocks for users with a history of not playing by the rules and that was where I set the tariff for these blocks. I don't think it sends the right message to unblock early in such cases. I do object. I suggest that you take it ti ANI if you still feel strongly about it. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:14, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  The point is that he was playing by the rules. No 3RR violation (the closest was the 3 reverts on 2002 Gujarat violence and, since he's not on any revert restriction, that's not really blockable). I kind of agree that edit warring over a disputed tag is downright stupid but escalating blocks are not really meant to be used when multiple editors are edit warring over the same article. It's your call but I don't really think this is achieving anything. --regentspark (comment) 15:48, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  No he wasn't playing by the rules he was revert warring on multiple articles and I blocked him for edit warring not a 3RR violation. Noone has a right to a 3rd revert. Its achieving a very clear message that when you have a history of behaving at the edge of acceptability you eventually reach the point where you need to pull back from the edge of face escalating blocks. To my mind that's an extremely useful message to send and unblocking doesn't send it. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:57, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Ok. I think it is admin overkill, we shouldn't be using our authority on a 'it's my judgement basis', but, like I said, it's your call. --regentspark (comment) 16:09, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Exactly, see this. On 3 June he was unblocked (by you). On 9 June he was reblocked. --Tito☸Dutta 15:47, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a point you'd like to make Tito. If yes, please do so. We can all see the block log. --regentspark (comment) 15:50, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• That's the point. It was not their first time mistake. --Tito☸Dutta 15:54, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you guys can go argue elsewhere and stop turning my page orange. Unless you have a point I need to see? Thanks. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:57, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Spartaz. Hope that you're well. Could you review my article on Henk Rottinghuis and let me know of it can be move into 'articles for creation'? Many thanks Vivj2012 (talk) 16:12, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• What are the two best sources here? Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:14, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Hi Spartaz. I'd say Horse Talk and Dressage News are the best sources regarding Rottinghuis. Let me know if you need anything else and thanks for reviewing the article. Vivj2012 (talk) 10:04, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • neither cut the mustard for me. I don't think Horsetalk even comes close to being a reliable source. There is no evidence of the necessary fact checking/peer review and the absence of bylines makes me wonder about who/how the news is generated. Dressage News reads like a regurgitated press release and doesn't contain enough personal data to make it a meaninful source. I'm less concerned about whether this is a reliable source as there is a named professional journalist running it but my judgements is that you won't get anywhere at AFD with these two and if the other sources are even less impressive then this won't last long if put in mainspace. I suggest you keep looking and wait for something to turn up. Spartaz ^Humbug! 02:08, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I'm sure you know, I expressed a great deal of uneasiness over Newyorkbrad's censure of Russavia because of the frightening precedent that it set for use of that tool, and it is regrettable that I must make a similar statement to that to you now.

I will start by reiterating for reference that I do not have any personal connection with Russavia and to the best of my knowledge have never interacted with him on- or off-wiki prior to this incident, as well as clarifying that I genuinely appreciate the fact that Jimbo made this conversation possible, so I say what I do because I feel compelled to defend members of our community in the spirit of fairness and in the best long-term interest of our project. Further, and while I recognize that you probably don't enjoy being thrust into this matter any more than I do, at this time there is no more appropriate of a way to deal with the issue than through direct communication.

Moving on to the issue at hand here, I will summarize by saying that Russavia technically made himself vulnerable to being blocked, though he did so in less time than it will probably take to read this message, and ultimately I assume that you decided to act because it was an opportune time to force the dust to settle.

In this matter, I am disheartened, however, by the fact that action was at least partly justified by wrongfully ascribing blame to Russavia for disruption largely caused by external influence and instigation, much of which has been at his expense. In fact, he has been on the receiving end of numerous comments that would result in immediate blocks under many circumstances, and it is my opinion that he has remained good spirited considering the tone of others—a relative factor which should always be considered in evaluating a user's conduct at a given time.

Unfortunately, and as an additional complication, the remedy also spawned some very inconsiderate discussions at AN/I that consisted of little more than metaphorical grave dancing and that concluded long before involved parties could reasonably be expected to comment. This does not mean that they will be considered unauthoritative in subsequent appeals and that risk is already evident by the tone of the latter discussion, which enjoyed significant support for measures which shouldn't even be categorically on the table at this point.

I respect the great body of your work as an administrator and do not intend to participate in the dramasphere, but I implore you on a very personal level to intervene at such time that the merit of this block is debated, because otherwise it can be expected that it may very well irreversibly destroy someone's experience on this project whose primary offending actions were more or less supported by both policy and rough consensus.   — C M B J   13:36, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for the reasoned way in which you raised this issue. For me there are two issues to be considered here. Firstly, I would rewspectfully disagree with the argument that Russavia is essentially an innocent victim of dark forces provoking him. Its pretty clear that he orchestrated a significant proportion of the drama and disruption that followed him around. If Russavia was serious about not provoking drama I respectfully suggest that commissioning an artwork of a man painting a prominent wikipedia personality with his penis, scrotum and bottom and then promoting this through a user draft and then seeking a DYK was a poor way of keeping the drama down. Taunting NYB about censorship immediately after been banned from Jimbo was a further piece of poor judgement if Russavia wasn't interested in the drama for drama's sake. Secondly, I would argue that irrespective of his innocence, the reality is that his presence on en-wiki had reached the point that pretty much anything he was doing was going to provoke drama and disruption. At some point we have to look at the wider interests of the project and say enough is enough. Looking through the ANI discussion I'm struck by how many non regulars and sensible admins/users endorsed the block. It wasn't the usual tarring and feathering brigade and that is highly significant to me. I don't generally take any advance position on future discussions until they happen so I'm not committing to doing anything for anyone but you can be assured that I'm not a tar and feathers admin and that I will continue to contribute with as much reflection and good reason as I am capable of. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:17, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you restore the article while the DRV is ongoing please? A few editors have asked for this so they can evaluate it. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:22, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I rarely temp undelete articles deleted for issues above and beyond standard N/GNG reasons and this one was deleted for NPOV issues amoungst others. This isn't one for me, but there are lots of other admins frequenting DRV and its interesting that none of them have taken the plunge either. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:19, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well it is good to know that other fellows take care of DRV, I assume of course that you are going to recuse yourself? Darkness Shines (talk) 19:10, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. Why should I? I'm not involved. All of my interactions with you have been in an administrative capacity and prior adminsitrative involvement doesn't make you involved. Spartaz ^Humbug!

Not that I would not expect you to remain dispassionate, however you did say you were uber pissed off with my being unblocked, and now the little note to my talk page. Some may think you a little ticked off at myself. However to be fair, I will as the opener of said DRV request that you close it now if that is allowed, it is obvious how it will go anyway Darkness Shines (talk) 19:28, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BTW NrT was already on the list mate Darkness Shines (talk) 19:31, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was annoyed with RegentsPark not you matey and I'm not recusing. Feel free to drum up support at WT:DRV if you don't like it but I'm generally the closer of DRVs and the regulars are mostly happy with my ability to do this properly. Good luck. Where was he on the list? Has he had a name change? Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:34, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to be keeping you from your bed. He reverted it, look at the history of the page, I had messed up on the templating thing, I do not want support, I would like you to close it out. The article has been rewritten and I have a few other editors looking it over, should you have a few minutes here it is. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:39, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you withdraw the DRV its not customary to close them early unless there is a particular benefit to it. Your new article looks fine to me by the way but I'm no expert in the region or on the sourcing and I'm not really able to say how the other editors in the area would respond to it. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:54, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have withdrawn it, and I had no doubts BTW that you would have been entirely fair in the close. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:28, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"[...] you need to grow a thicker skin and try to learn from feedback rather than railing against the other editor. Spartaz Humbug! 07:07, 22 June 2013 (UTC)"

Apparently that advice only applies to reg editors, not Admins? (Please see my feedback to at User talk:Drmies and how I was attacked for it. I could list additional examples from other Admins, but that is the most recent one. I'll listen to your feedback, you seem fair & good intentioned. My point is there seems to be a great divide, where Admins in many cases feel privileged to set your advice aflame as it does not apply to them -- at all.) Sincere, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:23, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I can only say it as I see it and I'm not personally responsible for the behaviour of every other editor or admin. Thank goodness. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:51, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for your detailed closing statement at [10]. I just wonder, what exactly were you referring to when talking about "DFU (disputed fair use)" being "rolled into FFD"? As far as I can see, {{Di-disputed fair use rationale}} still exists and is in regular use, as are its associated categories at Category:Disputed non-free Wikipedia files.

I'd also question whether your (correct) finding that admins processing disputed replaceability claims can judge whether such a challenge is obviously invalid really needs such a lengthy theoretical justification. A simple look at common practice would have sufficed. Admins overrule di-...-disputed tags as a matter of routine, every day, just like they overrule "holdon" tags for other speedies. The large majority of such tags are just obviously baseless and outside policy, so any expectation that every such tag ought to automatically block a speedy is simply unrealistic. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:59, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Several DRV regulars argued that such tags should block deletion and the explanation is for their benefit. I'll clarify the comment about DFU. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:03, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for clarifying this for me. I removed the comment as it obviously doesn't make any difference to the outcome and clearly my memory does suck. Thanks for taking the time to clarify this for me. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:10, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've just restored the redirect that was in place before the recent recreation-speedy-DRV cycle, more or less the status quo ante bellum, and left in place by RHaworth after the G4. Assuming this is OK, could you restore the talk page (and, if necessary, the brief article history) associated with the redirect? The process here has become a bit tangled, and I don't know what should be kept for attribution requirements (or if the protection applied to the redirect by RHaworth should be reapplied). Thanks. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:44, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Good catch HW, thanks. Don't think we need to protect - lets see if the neutral article emerges... Spartaz ^Humbug! 02:01, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spartaz, I definitely want to make a shorter neutral article emerge, preferably through normal editing of the June 2 article as I discussed with S Marshall at DRV; the question is how to achieve this result most easily. The 5 delete versus 3 keep/leaning-to-keep AFD2 was enough to delete the 2009-2013 article, but conversely the 5 overturn/make-a-shorter-article versus 3 endorse DRV was not judged enough to reverse the June 2 speedy delete and allow normal editing. I recognize that AFDs and DRVs should be decided based on facts and strength of reasoning, which is why I added Table N, notability to prove what I believe is unquestionable notability, most objectively WP:MUSICBIO § 10, and remembering WP:BIO's "(combining) multiple independent sources ...to demonstrate notability." Because of the 65 kbyte length of the 2009-2013 article, the AFD Delete commenters probably did not recognize these facts+reasoning (see Table E, errors), the AFD closing admin probably misread the real consensus reason for their Delete comments, and the DRV Endorse commenters did not respond squarely to these facts+reasoning even after they were presented. If you will not reconsider your DRV ruling, I would appreciate your perceptions and advice on how to proceed. Thanks, I genuinely appreciate the time that neutral admins contribute. RCraig09 (talk) 17:31, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• If you fill a page with long screeds and non-userfriendly tables then of course its going to put people off contributing. Everyone is a volunteer and makes a value judgement about whether a comment in a particular place is worth the aggrevation. You do have a tendency to bludgeon and disagree with opposing votes and many people frankly can't be bothered to deal with that if they don't feel strongly. Consensus on wikipedia is reached by weighting arguments not counting snouts and even if we did that, we had 5 to overturn, 3 endorses and S.Marshall's comment was effectively "write an article but not this one". That that outcomeis effectively the outcome of the DRV so you have not grounds to be aggrieved with the result here. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:02, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Spartaz, thanks for your consideration and feedback. To explain: I had intended my pre-existing charts to crystallize+organize the facts+reasoning, thinking it would be a more user friendly presentation. RCraig09 (talk) 14:23, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• (Talk page stalker): RCraig09: Write a fresh, short article in userspace, here: User:RCraig09/Lisa Lavie. When you're happy that every sentence in it is backed up by a checkable, independent source, drop a note on my talk page and I'll review it with a view to moving it into mainspace. If only for the sake of appearances, I suggest that you don't move it into the mainspace yourself. I'm 100% confident that Spartaz will not object to the creation of a draft that overcomes the real reasons for deletion.—S Marshall T/C 12:16, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks S.Marshall, I appreciate your offer to help out and you are, as always, correct that I never object to a new draft that improves on material that has been deleted. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:55, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• S. Marshall, yours is an excellent idea and a welcome offer: I was imagining a collaborative approach like the one you suggest. RCraig09 (talk) 14:23, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Spartaz,

I noticed that you closed a DRV for Mister World with a statement that recreation was permitted if the proffered sources were used. I have recreated the article accordingly. I hope the new article meets with your approval.

Neelix (talk) 03:56, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Spartaz. See my suggestion that User:Mrt3366's AE appeal be archived for now, due to his block. I'm leaving you a note since you are the last admin to modify his block. This is not a proposal for you to unlock his talk page; allowing some time to pass could actually be a good thing. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 15:34, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Francisco Romero (sportscaster) as "redirect", it looks like you deleted the article instead. Was this intentional? czar · · 17:30, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, an unsourced BLP. Redirect doesn't need it. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:34, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't follow. If you closed it as redirect, shouldn't it end up as a redirect (even if you delete it in-between)? The page is currently deleted. czar · · 18:03, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that looks like twinkle error. Let me fix that, Thanks for the heads up. I didn't notice that. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:10, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This should have been closed as a keep, not a merge! I would ask that you explain your reasoning. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 17:55, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• This could only be closed as keep by giving non-policy based votes more weight than policy based one but I have expanded my close to explain my reasoning. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:08, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you closed the DRV pointing the list back to the deleting admin, however they had already bought it up there (making the mistake of putting at the top rather than bottom) here, where they are directed to DRV... --86.5.93.42 (talk) 06:09, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• ah, thanks, I didn't see anything on Mark's page when I checked. I have reopened the DRV. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:25, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Spartaz, I saw that you revoked Russavia's talk page access. You cited a principle that I haven't seen spelled out so starkly before; while there are certainly cases where commenting on Wikipedia content would fan the flames of a conflict, I don't think that's the case here. The things Russavia pointed out were legitimate concerns, and other users have since taken related actions. While it's true that his delivery was a little snarky, I can't see how that's an actionable problem. Could you explain, or (I think better), reverse this action? -Pete (talk) 23:39, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• What possible need does Russavia have for using his talkpage to comment on content except either to solicit edits or make some convoluted point about his block. Neither action is helpful.
• Relevant link
• second relevant link,
• third relevant link
• Well, the clear consensus from my block review is that Russavia had reached the point that his continued participation in this project is no longer welcome and the use of talk pages to solicit edits was recently discussed at AN and the consensus was that this was not acceptable use of a talk page. Further AGK locked Russavia's page recently for misuse so its hardly a massive stretch to lock him out for his most recent edits that were clearly designed to solicit edits. I'm comfortable with this action but do feel free to raise this at a drama board if you wish. Since I'm currently on holiday and have sporadic access to the internet perhaps you can cite my explanation if you do decide to go for an extra dose of dramah. Thanks. Spartaz ^Humbug! 01:18, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the other case of user talk access you are talking about a while back and the circumstances were markedly different. The editor in question was asking people to paste his comments into ongoing discussions that were not related to his block and to get involved in the same contentious situations that lead to his block, with plenty of dramatastic bemoaning of his lot in life in between. My impression was not that it was a general rejection of using one's talk page to point out legitimate issues with content and more a rejection of a specific editor using his talk page as a war room from which he could continue his various campaigns unabated. Someone saying, "this is a copyright issue" or "this is vandalism" is most definitely not the same thing.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 07:13, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Spartaz, thanks for explaining your thinking. I agree with TDA, though -- the points Russavia made on his talk page were clearly productive. Whatever is going on between him and Jimmy, I am pretty confident it will eventually blow over, both are deeply dedicated to Wikimedia's values. For now, I'm going to restore Russavia's user talk page access. I don't think there will be any trouble. -Pete (talk) 21:51, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Spartaz, in response to your message on my talk page -- if you feel strongly about this, do what you think is best. I saw something that looked to me like a pretty simple and understandable mistake on your part, and did what I thought was in the best interest of the project. I don't see what damage is likely to come from my actions, and I think it's a benefit to Wikipedia to have alerts of copyvios etc. from experienced users. -Pete (talk) 17:27, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One other thing worth mentioning -- the purpose of a block is to protect the project and other users, not punitive. I'm not sure if your intent here is punitive or not, but I do have difficulty seeing how strengthening the block in this way would provide protection to the project or its community. -Pete (talk) 17:33, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Spartaz and Pete, now that this episode appears to be over, one or the both of you is going to record a lessons learned about it on the applicable WP administration Best Practices page, aren't you? That way, other admins can read and internalize what took place here with the goal of making future admin actions on similar issues more consistent and reliable. Also, please review the checklist that you follow when acting on situations like this and make sure that this type of contingency is included in the steps listed. Thank you. Cla68 (talk) 23:14, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Pete, is it true that you collaborate with Russavia on Commons? Might need to note something about that in the best practices paragraph you draft also. Cla68 (talk) 23:37, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why this is such a big issue. Obviously, if Russavia uses his talk page for purposes that are detrimental to the project, that will reflect poorly on my decision. I restored his access because I'm confident that won't happen. Unless there's some kind of harm to the project, I don't understand what more there is to discuss? Isn't there an encyclopedia to be built? -Pete (talk) 04:29, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Clarification has been sought at ANI [11]. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:15, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: Your Archive17 link (above) actually points to the page for Archive16. Enjoy your break! RCraig09 (talk) 02:17, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Fixed, thanks for the heads up. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:25, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Spartaz, given your actions here, I'm not sure you're the admin that should have closed this discussion at all, let alone early. It should be re-opened and then closed by an uninvolved (and unbiased) admin. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 06:16, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm the regular DRV closer and you have a habit of personalising discussions. If you feel that I have acted incorrectly you can seek feedback at WT:DRV to see if anyone else agrees with you. I asked twice for the discussion to be cooled down and you continued to label people you disagree with. You can't complain in those circumstances if the discussion is curtailed. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:22, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Early closure of Elexis Monroe deletion review". Thank you. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 16:29, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree with your closes of NA's nominations. The ed. commented on my talk p.,I gave him some concise advice there to supplement what everyone else has said, and I think he has now understood it. DGG ( talk ) 21:23, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did you see this yet? [12] Unbelievable! --I am One of Many (talk) 01:45, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Spartaz, I was going through Wikipedia Requested Articles http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requested_articles/Business_and_economics/People_in_business and I saw some requests and in that I found about a person called Ayaan Chawla and other and when I saw the page I found that it was created by a editor previously and deleted & blocked by you, so is that article can be recreated, in any new manner? Benjohnson61 (talk) 16:39, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I closed the DRV. I didn't delete the article, protect the page or block the creator so you probably should ask these questions of those admins. I'd suggest however that this is a tainted article because of the misbehavior of the creator and a new editor would not be well served getting involved - especially given all the sockpuppetry that has taken place. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:11, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I got it but as I just wanted to know if I can create article on this topic or not? Benjohnson61 (talk) 17:17, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I wouldn't if I were you. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:48, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you removed the protection for Alison Rosen. Can you also un-protect the talk page? Aaron north (T/C)

Hello,

You closed the DRV on Thirty Years of Research on Race Differences in Cognitive Ability with an Endorsed but you did not provide any reasoning for your decision. Would you mind providing some? Without such reasoning, it is difficult for someone new to DRV (like me) to understand the process.

The main reason that I am confused is that my understanding of DRV is that it is supposed to address situations in which "there was a substantive procedural error(s) in the deletion discussion or speedy deletion." I argued that there was in this case because the article evolved substantially during the original discussion (and since then). That is, many of the editors recommended deletion the first time around because of a lack of reliable sources. And they were correct! So, reliable sources have been added. And so on. My understanding is that DRV is not the place to "repeat arguments already made in the deletion discussion." But that is just what happened here. Not a single person in the discussion addressed my main point, that the original deletion discussion was flawed. For example, User:Maunus and User:DGG made exactly the same arguments here that he made in the original deletion discussion. And, once/if, the article was relisted, it would be totally appropriate for them to do so! But this venue is not intended for those arguments. However, they provided no counter-arguments to my claim that was a substantial procedural error.

While I realize that DRV is not a vote, I will note that the three editors who were not a part of the on-going debate over this article/topic (User:S Marshall, User:Hobit and User:SmokeyJoe) all seem (to me) to be willing to have a broader discussion, using phrases like "MfD the userspace page", "move draft to mainspace and relist seems reasonable" and "leaning no, but it may take a lot of time to justify that in term of Wikipedia logic". My point is not to argue that these editors agree with me but to suggest that it would certainly be helpful for you to explain your logic in endorsing more clearly. Thanks! Yfever (talk) 11:26, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I have expanded the DRV close to explain my thinking more. I'd like to direct your attention to WP:STICK. I honestly don't belive you have any further to go with this and should move on. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:55, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for taking the time to do so. Yfever (talk) 01:22, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Spartaz. I'm contacting you because you're involved in the Article Feedback Tool in some way, either as a previous newsletter recipient or as an active user of the system. As you might have heard, a user recently anonymously disabled the feedback tool on 2,000 pages. We were unable to track or prevent this due to the lack of logging feature in AFT5. We're deeply sorry for this, as we know that quite a few users found the software very useful, and were using it on their articles.

We've now re-released the software, with the addition of a logging feature and restrictions on the ability to disable. Obviously, we're not going to automatically re-enable it on each article—we don't want to create a situation where it was enabled by users who have now moved on, and feedback would sit there unattended—but if you're interested in enabling it for your articles, it's pretty simple to do. Just go to the article you want to enable it on, click the "request feedback" link in the toolbox in the sidebar, and AFT5 will be enabled for that article.

Again, we're very sorry about this issue; hopefully it'll be smooth sailing after this :). If you have any questions, just drop them at the talkpage. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 18:47, 2 September 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk • contribs) [reply]

Thanks for reminding me that BDJ was six years ago; I feel old now. You're right too; I liked him (or arguing with him, anyway) and I wish he'd stuck around. Mackensen (talk) 22:26, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Jeff did a great job keeping us evil deletionists in line and he was always respectful and fun to have around. I agree about feeling old. *cough* then I looked at my birth cirtificate and realised..... Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:37, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, as you endorsed the deletion, should the article be re-deleted? Seeing as it was only restored for the purposes of the discussion... GiantSnowman 14:00, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Indeed it should have been. Thanks for the heads up. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:53, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Spartaz.

This is just a quick courtesy notice. You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute/Evidence. Please add your evidence by September 19, 2013, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Seddon ^talk 23:38, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Harassment from an admin". Thank you. --Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 19:39, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]