Archive for August 2011
Hey. I was the initiator of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian Fundamentalism (disambiguation). Since then the DAB has evolved significantly and some good cases are being made for Keep. While I haven't changed my official position, I gotta say this comment should probably be refined. I agree with what I think is the gist of what you're saying, but saying someone is using drugs is not respectful and pretty close to violating WP:NPA. Did you want to refine that statement maybe? Toddst1 (talk) 02:42, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I appreciate your position, and respect it, but I find the comment hilariously funny and mocking of what is an over the top assertion with no seriousness at all. I apologize that you misunderstand this as a serious assertion that the user in question is a drug user meant as an attack. In fact, nothing wrong with doing drugs, in my view - so I apologize to all those who regularly use drugs an don't go around asserting hilariously meaningless things in Wikipedia for using their recreational choices as a way to mock somebody. --Cerejota (talk) 02:49, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
After my Breivik-related block I'm opting out of editing articles, the rough and tumble is fair enough, though usually a fatuous waste of time, but as the conflict resolution process is "flawed" too I'm shifting my attention elsewhere. It wasn't Geller I was particularly concerned with but I came across the following and since you seemed interested I thought I'd pass this on.
I don't know whether you know about her efforts to remove compromising text from a 2007 post - they're examined at http://www.loonwatch.com/2011/07/pamela-geller-edits-post-to-conceal-violent-rhetoric-in-email-from-norway/
The original post is preserved at Google Cache and the Comments section is interesting.
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=cache:http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2007/06/email-from-norw.html&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8
Geller knows the identity of the message's sender, she's deliberately disguised his identity before posting the comment.
<< ...
- "There's an Old Testament blood-bath comin'.
- Question remains: Are there enough Norsemen that will hear the Wyking song pulse in their veins?
- Or will they rely on their Norske and EU's eunuch 'leadership'?
- Season after season Norway (and Sweden) are conceding whole neighborhoods populated by 'immigrants' as no-go zones. Police and EMS won't respond there. It's the friggin' death-cry of civilization when the barbarians can intimidate in this manner.
- So...yes. A very nice letter to you, Pam, from a Norwegian Atlasite (Atlasonian?). Unfortunately, he or she could be prosecuted under hate-speech laws for writing or posting in Norway what you have passed on to us."
- Posted by: turn | Sunday, June 24, 2007 at 01:40 PM
- "yes turn, which is why I ran it anonymously"
- Posted by: Pamela Geller | Sunday, June 24, 2007 at 02:54 PM
... >>
There seems no reason to believe it was anyone other than Geller as author of the blog who removed the two sentences "We are stockpiling and caching weapons, ammunition and equipment. This is going to happen fast." from the 2007 post. It's not unreasonable to assume that the timing is connected with the massacre and Breivik. The message isn't necessarily from Breivik, it could be an associate of his who's asked Geller to redact the original or even just a fellow-thinker. But either way, Geller is admitting covering his/her tracks at the time of posting and her current action suggests she's doing some more covering up now. Absolutely irrelevant to the scrupulous intellects at BLPN, of course, but it's a bit of encouragement to those of us who have to reassure ourselves that we're not dishonest or stupid. Opbeith (talk) 10:27, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This all seems to be original research, and you got b& for a reason. When you comeback, try to understand why this happened, and not do it again. It seems to me this was a just block, unfortunately for you :(--Cerejota (talk) 22:45, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We'll agree to differ then, amicably. Opbeith (talk) 23:42, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, if you like starting/editing such an article you're invited in my user page. Suggestion for placing a new Wikipedia:.X related article are also welcome! Blackvisionit (talk) 01:52, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Great idea, but lets then move it to Wikipedia:Why is Wikipedia losing contributors? or otherwise take it out of user space, no?--Cerejota (talk) 01:55, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I would suggest to (1) build a basic stub - skeleton in user page and (2) then after reaching a 4 / 5 involved user count move it all to Wikipedia:Why is Wikipedia losing contributors?. I got the feeling we're given chance to start a big contribution! Blackvisionit (talk) 02:04, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- PS: We also need to get at least an admin actively involved, in order to handle unavoidable problematic users... Blackvisionit (talk) 02:09, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Costruirlo e verranno, credetemi... so just go ahead, and dont wait for people. I would do it for you, but you the idea man and credit for the start should be yours :) --Cerejota (talk) 02:12, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well then let's start. 'Why is Wikipedia losing contributors? Thinking about remedies'. Second part of the title is added just to keep it clear we're not dealing with criticism but with constructive thinking! Blackvisionit (talk) 02:20, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia:Why is Wikipedia losing contributors - Thinking about remedies like this, because the question mark is awkward in english...--Cerejota (talk) 02:26, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Are you keeping an eye on the article? It seems there's already need of some refactoring
- Shifting first-person informal comments from main page to talk page
- Refactoring first-person comments in talk page as suitable to be integrated with the main page
There's also need of a headline section explaining the 'expected article editing process
- Try when possible to integrate your comment to existing sections
- Keep as short as possible
- Post first-person comments to talk-page
- Post general comments to main-page
GOAL1: let's try to keep cool and objective
GOAL2: a simple short structured article is much more readable and non-confusing
Blackvisionit (talk) 18:40, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I am of the opinion of not trying to direct discussion too much, but don't feel strongly against direction either - let it flow, not anticipate, but react... its how wikis work best. I am now busy IRL, but will look at it later today.--Cerejota (talk) 21:09, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article is growing well. What do you think?
Can you please hand me some help with a problematic user on this page? Floppy disk hardware emulator
- he rose conflict until article stubbing was the only solution (because of RS paranoia and personal conflict against me)
- now there's a mild try to rebuild the article but he keeps reverting anything different from his idea
I would appreciate it a lot! Blackvisionit (talk) 04:04, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You wrote that essay on Not News, right, Cerejota?
You make excellent points.Randnotell (talk) 14:37, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What essay?--Cerejota (talk) 15:39, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What's YOUR problem with my Wikipedia page?
ALL of it is 100% accurate TRUTH - NO EMBELLISHMENTS. EVERYTHING can be confirmed and it is objective.
Explain your issues to me here - I will then respond. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ALifeOfVictory (talk • contribs) 17:37, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I assume you are referring to Spider Ledesma, correct? If so, please read WP:OWN - no one "owns" any article in wikipedia. So you shouldn't refer to an article as "my" article, it is "our" article.
I also assume that you are Spider Ledesma himself, correct? In which case I ask that you please read WP:COI, it has important information for you.
I briefly explained a number of issues in the article in the article's talk page, which is where I feel any conversation on its content should go. If you have any issues about the article, please discuss them there, however if you have any questions or concerns regarding WP:COI or your 3RR violation, feel free to address them here. Thanks. --Cerejota (talk) 18:13, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I saw that you closed this AfD. Can you reopen it to allow an administrator to close it? Non-admins aren't supposed to be closing any AfDs that aren't SNOW keeps, especially AfDs such as this where the opinions were roughly split down the line. Your closing rationale reads more like an opinion rather than a summary of the consensus. You may want to look over Wikipedia:Non-admin closure if you want to close AfDs as a non-admin in the future. ThemFromSpace 04:06, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- (edit conflict) I have done many non-admin closures, so while I appreciate you including appropriate policy, it was not needed. I do suggest that in the future you provide the relevant text you feel is being violated, to provide clarity in the discussion.--(edit conflict) I am afraid you are mistaken, as per Wikipedia:Non-admin_closure. Non-administrators are allowed to close any AfD that doesn't require admin action, in which there is no contentious and controversial discussion and a clear consensus, and to not have any conflict of interest or be an involved party. Some editors and admins disagree with the policy as is, or like yourself, interpreted in ways it was not meant to be interpreted (for example, it doesn't say anything about snowy keeps, or anything other than what you explained). If you disagree with my close, please take it to WP:DRV for further discussion, as I stand behind its essentially non-controversial nature, and there was clear consensus to keep.-- (edit conflict)My closing summary addressed all points for deletion, and found them to be outweighted by the arguments for keep. It clearly says so, so I do not understand why you contend otherwise. --Cerejota (talk) 04:18, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I really don't want to take this to DRV, as that is never a fun experience, but I'm willing to do so since I strongly believe that your closure was inappropriate (on a procedural level as well as a policy-based one). Please let an admin close this, as in practice at AfD it is almost never the case where a non-admin closes any debates that are anything other than SNOW keeps (such as cases with 90% keeps, or ones created by banned users.. etc). ThemFromSpace 04:24, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I equally strongly believe the closure was correct on a procedural level, and believe it was strongly correct in terms of policy. I will not reverse, and furthermore advice you that this list will be kept even if re-submitted to AfD after DRV (and the DRV will result either on supporting my closure or re-submission, of this I am 100% sure), as the consensus is clear that WP:NOTCATALOG only applies to lists of products with prices and marketing material, and there is clear community consensus that list of products - as a category of article - are not automatically out of bounds and against policy. DGG said it pretty clearly in his summation of the "keep" !vs.
- Lastly, I remind you that as per policy, XfDs are not votes - they are discussions. Compelling evidence of community consensus to keep this article was presented, and its opposite was not. I strongly suggest you drop the matter, because at the end of the long march, we will come back to the same point of origin of keep, with the difference that you would have saved yourself, me and the good olde folks over at DRV a load of editing time that could have been spent doing other stuff, like editing good articles and giving other editors kittehs and brownies. If you really want to go into WP:DRV to get the same result you are getting now, be my guest. See you at the end when it is kept again.
- And what do you mean that DRVs are not fun? They are always a fun experience, admins get to give us all spankies for being naughty and whip out the fuzzy pink handcuffs and stuff, and we go back to editing and wikiloving, which it really what we are here for. :)--Cerejota (talk) 04:43, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- XfDs are discussions that admins should be closing. This is why admins go through a highly stressful RfA process. The page I linked you above specifically states that if you have to weigh the strength of the different votes, then a XfD is not a good candidate for a non-admin closure. As a non-admin you should not be weighing the strength of different votes when closing XfDs. The only ones you should close are ones that are unanimous or nearly unanimous. Can I have your assurance that you won't be performing NACs in the future where the consensus isn't abundantly clear? ThemFromSpace 04:50, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That is your opinion, and WP:CCC, but that is not policy a sit stands today - albeit you could find an admin or two to back you up because boys will be boys. Also, please read WP:NOBIGDEAL which sums up what I think about adminship, its the same as editing except you have some tools editors don't and have an extra layer of getting into trouble for pulling wheelies if you get cocky... bEFORE i FORGET: There are three rules in wikipedia, NPOV, Dont be a dick, and ignore them when they encumber quality encyclopedic editing. The rest is ornamentation and role-playing games. :)--Cerejota (talk) 05:01, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, at the very least can you take this point to heart: When someone experienced in a particular area points out a procedural error that you've made, its best to listen and see where they're coming from. You didn't do this with me and you didn't do this in the conversation with SilkTork above. You fought tooth-and-nail against more experienced editors when all they wanted to do was help you out.
- Don't worry about this particular case, I'm not going to take it to DRV. It's not worth my time. Perhaps in the future I'll throw another AfD up on it and see how the consensus stands then. But please pay attention to proper AfD procedures in the future. A good rule of thumb is this: when looking to close a debate, if you feel strongly about an article then put your opinion in the debate, but don't close it. ThemFromSpace 05:27, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Never worried - it made no sense to do a DRV, it was a non-controversial close, of a non-controversial article, in a non-controversial topic area, non-controversial in policy and non-controversial in procedure, you just didn't like it for totally understandable reasons (you nominated it).
- I had no opinion about the article, never edited the topic area (except maybe some wikignoming I don't recall when patrolling), don't really care much for it. It was however in the "due for closing" list, had been already re-listed, and was a sore sight, so I thought I'll help. I am sorry this distressed this you so much, but surely you must know that other non-admins will continue to close AfDs, even those you feel are done incorrectly - and some will indeed be closed incorrectly and some won't. I suggest that when this happens in the future, you try to find out a little how much time they have been around the wiki, because in my case, I had been a registered member when you registered longer than you have been here at all. I have probably been in more AfDs than you have (I have been in VfDs, for christsake!). So there is at at least a presumption that I am not ignorant of process, just disagree with your take on it.
- I am asking for un-involved advice, because I feel your involvement is too great for me to feel comfortable discussing this further with you. Nothing personal, but I feel your tone to be patronizing, and that worries me.--Cerejota (talk) 17:39, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
{{uninvolved|Advice|I non-admin closed an AfD on an article I felt was non-controversial, in a fashion I felt reflected consensus, the admin who nominated for deletion tried to get me to reverse, arguing policy. I disagree. While the issue itself seems to have been dropped in terms of proceeding to DRV, I would like advice from uninvolved admins - in this case that would mean that they don't know the involved admin or me -, both on the issue itself, and on how the admin proceeded. I have some mixed feelings about it and an uninvolved voice would be awesome... --Cerejota (talk) 17:39, 8 August 2011 (UTC)}}[reply]
Disclosures: I collaborated with Themfromspace in early–mid 2009, but I don't remember interacting with him since. I saw the {{Talkback}}s on his talk page. I have edited WP:Non-admin closure and am a semi-regular at DRV.
I think that the proper close is no consensus, as the pivotal issue is the interpretation of WP:NOTDIR, with numbers exactly even at 4-4 counting ThemFromSpace and Meirpolaris and disregarding the invalid Speedy keep from 86.145.142.142. Both keep and delete are probably within admin discretion, and Cerejota's close may or may not be overturned at WP:Deletion review. I think the most likely outcome there would be "endorse, keep is effectively the same as no consensus" and a rubber stamp by an admin if participants are concerned by the NAC.
Cerejota, I have some concerns with your tone – even with your smileys – but I realize that text often loses expression as it is written. Flatscan (talk) 04:32, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, that is valuable, and I thank you for taking the time to address this - I am not clear as to why you were looking at ThemFromSpace talkpage if you haven't had contact with him in over two years, but I am open to advice anyways.
- I appreciate your view, which I mostly share. There is no way this would have been deleted at DRV - overturn as "no consensus" or a rubberstamped "keep" by an admin would have been the result, maybe a re-list (althought thats thin because of the 14 days it already had). That said, I never close as "no consensus" as indeed I feel "no consensus" closes should be done by admins, as per WP:Non-admin closure - a no consensus close implies an underlying controversy in the community, or at least among a set of editors that feels strongly enough to not being able to agree conclusively on a delete or a keep. Part of my logic is the similarity of arguments flattened the discussion, and I basically saw it as 2-1 discussion: 2 keep arguments vs 1 delete argument. ThemFromSpace himself bought up notability as an issue, and this is why I addressed this in the closure comment, but I didn't count it as it basically came in the tail end of a 14 day discussion.
- As to your concerns with tone, since precisely it is tone what prompted me for advice in dealing with ThemFromSpace, what is of concern to you of my tone? I think ThemFromSpace was treating me in a patronizing fashion, as I stated, but I am surprised to hear about tone, albeit I will be honest, it is not the first time I have had misunderstandings based on tone and language, so I am interested in what you have to say. --Cerejota (talk) 05:55, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Having thought it over, I think that there is probably a fundamental difference in how we communicate on Wikipedia. I generally avoid using humor, joking, and irony, lest they be misinterpreted. With the benefit of hindsight, the bottom line is that you stand behind your close and that ThemFromSpace would not be able to convince you to reverse it. Given this impasse, your light tone and joking seem flippant and dismissive, and ThemFromSpace's earnest advancement of his argument comes across as patronizing. Flatscan (talk) 04:29, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I can appreciate your views, even share some of them, but you give nothing by the way of advice, which is what I am looking for. --Cerejota (talk) 00:21, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I apologize for not being more helpful. If you do not receive responses to the {{uninvolved}}, you may get better responsiveness from asking wiki-friends or -acquaintances directly. If you file at DRV, participants will consider your close and provide feedback. WP:Wikiquette assistance reviews civility issues, but I think it covers more heated disputes. Flatscan (talk) 04:33, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah wikiquette is overkill, but the DRV suggestion might be a good one. Thanks! --Cerejota (talk) 04:35, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't necessarily disagree with your move of this (personally, I'd move all "Murder of" articles to "Death of"), but I think it may be hard to justify the move, given articles such as Murder of Stephen Lawrence. Both murders occurred within a few years of each other in London, both are unsolved, both are assumed to have had racial/racist motives, both were watershed moments in the policing of London. So I think they need the same title, whatever it is, and I think it's unlikely you would be able to move Murder of Stephen Lawrence to Death of Stephen Lawrence.
Also, in terms of how Blakelock's death is referred to in the UK, it is always "the murder of". SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 18:51, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your comments. I already moved to Death of Stephen Lawrence. It might be true that "murder of" might be common to refer to many deaths, but unless they are sufficiently historical (such as the use of "Massacre" to refer to many old-timey killfests) I see "murder" as a WP:WTA in titles and hence a violation of neutrality, in particular when used in controversial or controversy prone areas, such as incidents involving the police or politically motivated killings, regardless of what POV or emotive reasons lie behind. An exception would be serial murders, which are generally non-controversial anyways, or mass murders, because "mass deaths" as a phrase is not generally used by anyone.--Cerejota (talk) 18:59, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, thanks, I do agree with you. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 19:02, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure, and thanks for pointing this out. --Cerejota (talk) 19:10, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed you moved Death of Keith Blakelock. Can you do anything about this disgracefully named article that has cropped-up? There has been no trial yet, let a lone a conviction, and that term can't be legitimally used until a conviction for that crime has been made. It may even be considered as prejudicial in any legal proceedings. FactController (talk) 19:23, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I am for deleting that article, and it is not a good idea to rename articles that are being subject to an AfD except to address the concerns of an AfD, so far the name of the article is not an issue for the deletion discussion, just the plain notability of the subject. If the result of the deletion discussion is "keep", and no one beats me to it, I will rename it and defend a consensus to rename on WP:WTA and WP:NPOV grounds. Even after a conviction, the word "murder" in general should be avoid in the title, although it can be used in the text with attribution (ie "Y was found to be murdered by X by a court of law").
- You can read my argument for deletion in the discussion, but I support deletion based on WP:NEVENT, WP:BIO1E and WP:NOTNEWS, and believe this warrants at most a one or two line mention on the article on the riots, as per WP:UNDUE. --Cerejota (talk) 19:34, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you know if there's any way of getting it deleted/renamed immediately on legal grounds given that a suspect has been arrested and the incident is subjudice in England? FactController (talk) 19:40, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The closest to this is not mentioning the suspect by name, and it is almost always not a successful argument, but there has never, in the history of all of wikipedia, an article entirely deleted/renamed via regular process of consensus solely on legal grounds regarding the content. Never.
- Please read WP:LEGAL as to why this should never be used as an argument in any discussion. Short course: if you use legal grounds to object inclusion, you could be blocked until you remove the objection. An exception is copyright violations, which are subject to immediate removal, and if an article is entirely made of a copyright violation, it is subject to speedy deletion. Copyright of media files such as images, which follows its own procedures for deletion and often focus on legal matters, is another exception. Never ever try to use legal arguments in a discussion in wikipedia, ever - you will put yourself at risk of being blocked for making legal threats.
- In a related note, I sense - perhaps incorrectly - that you might feel a sense of immediacy of the issue. I often feel the same way, and in fact, feel this way about this article, which I find an aberration and an insult to encyclopedic quality. However, it might serve you well to understand that there is no deadline, and of course show a little less care for the things you cannot control. Let the process work itself out. Personally, I think this article will be deleted/merged, and if it isn't, I will take it to WP:DRV. But one must let the process, which exists for a reason, flow, and process takes time.--Cerejota (talk) 19:55, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough. I thought pointing it out was wise though, and I certainly wasn't making, or planning to make any threats, legal or otherwise, just pointing out that it might not be a wise title. FactController (talk) 20:08, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Someone did raise it in the deletion discussion, and someone else raised a similar point to yours (murder as a legal view), so I went ahead and did it, based on it being raised there. I see also that you haven't commented on the deletion discussion, feel free to do so if you wish.--Cerejota (talk) 20:20, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I was looking for advice first, on how to proceed. It was more the name itself, rather than whether the article should be kept or deleted, that I was worried about. Thanks for your help, and action.
 FactController (talk) 20:34, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Without commenting on the substance of the long post you made here, you might want to reconsider your threat to revert to 3RR to enforce your favored version. WP:3RR is a bright-line limit, not an entitlement and it is perfectly possible to be blocked for edit-warring before reaching that limit. If you could redact that part of your post, it will make it easier for others to consider your other points on their merits. Best wishes, --John (talk) 07:16, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Definitely, as I was jesting... thanks for pointing that out!--Cerejota (talk) 07:17, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks a lot. --John (talk) 07:27, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hiya! Please remember to exercise caution while warning users for proposed deletions of pages. I was recently notified that you have tagged the article J. Randall for deletion, but I did nothing but move the article (I didn't create it). Notifying the page's creator, User:KrazKC1, is mandatory. Best regards, Bryce Wilson | talk 04:00, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- My apologizes for not double-checking the tool's auto-notify.--Cerejota (talk) 04:01, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No problem. Just remember to exercise caution about TW because it sometimes notifies the author who last revised the article. (I made a similar mistake recently, with an apology to the person I accidently warned.) All the best, and good luck! Bryce Wilson | talk 04:03, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for both your courtesy and the thoughtful consideration applied to your recent RfC closure. Your willingness to step neutrally into the fray of this contentious and long-standing dispute speaks highly of your commitment to the process that promotes this Wikipedia project as both functional and credible. Nice job.
One suggestion if I might...perhaps refactor the closure into the RFC and responses section so as to facilitate a {{cot}} collapse tag being reapplied to the "Meta" discussion? Thanks again for your consideration. JakeInJoisey (talk) 10:21, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Done I hope that was what you asked for, at least :P ALso, thank you for your kind words... and do try to take that kindness into editing :)--Cerejota (talk) 10:47, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well...sorta...but I'll edit it to re-establish section structure and re-display the RfC closure. Thanks. JakeInJoisey (talk) 10:52, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. BrownBot (talk) 21:41, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In regards to the proposed deletion of J. Randall (entertainer)...the references have been updated to meet the WP:MUSICBIO criteria and WP:GNG. But can you explain to me why this criteria is not met...Is an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a member of two or more independently notable ensembles. And what about J. Randall's notability as an actor? NOTE he is a singer-songwriter, dancer, AND ACTOR — Preceding unsigned comment added by KrazKC1 (talk • contribs) 02:47, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I suggest you put your comments in the deletion discussion - your argument is unpersuasive. All of the sources are not from reliable sources (you can ask for help at WP:RSN with that), and he doesn't meet the criteria in part because there is no reliable sources. A reliable source is not just a mention, it needs to be somewhat extensive coverage independent of the subject, and also be generally respect as sources for biographical information, such as national and international periodicals, well respected news websites etc. As to the WP:ACTOR he doesn't meet it. Just being in a movie or two with a notable actor is not enough, he has to win prizes or have had significant coverage independent of just one film. By significant we mean wide-spread. He still seems to be in the up-and-coming phase, and we all wish him well, but we generally do not cover up-and-coming artists and actors, only "made" ones.
- Also don't forget to sign yor comments, and to use the "+" or "section" button instead of "edit" to add new sections for comments to other peoples talk pages. Thank you.--Cerejota (talk) 03:07, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I have undone your close; the outcome was not clear and therefore not suitable for a non-admin close. TerriersFan (talk) 03:15, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I have also undone Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gomes Elementary School (2nd nomination). Whilst 'redirect' looks a likely outcome, in my view there is room for debate so, again, it was not suitable for a non-admin close. TerriersFan (talk) 17:53, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand the first one, (specially in view of input I received since) but not the second one - care to elaborate? It seems pretty much clear this is to be redirected, there is not even a claim of notability as there is in the first one.--Cerejota (talk) 17:55, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The claim for notability for the second one lies in it being a Blue Ribbon School, just as the first one was. There are other sources that can be added that may meet WP:GNG. Because a 'Blue Ribbon School' is the highest award that a US school can receive, there is at least the argument that the AfD should have been closed as 'merge'. This judgement is more appropriate to an admin. TerriersFan (talk) 18:08, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Understood, and thank you for taking the time.--Cerejota (talk) 18:13, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This has quite a history - if you haven't seen it, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 August 11. I have commented there about your de-fluff of the latest re-appearance of the article and suggested that, while I think you are right that a redirect is the answer, to lay the issue to rest your version should be considered at AfD. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 10:42, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll answer there.--Cerejota (talk) 17:09, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Englaand, Englaaaaand, Englaaaaaaaand? [1] :-) Prioryman (talk) 08:19, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- HAHAHAHAHA! Only thing the English love more than the Queen... and even then its a close race ;)--Cerejota (talk) 08:25, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Cerejota. Completely agree with that. You might like to also consider moving Murder of Sian O'Callaghan, another outstanding case which is yet to be heard. I think it has been moved before so you may need to delete the redirect. Cheers TheRetroGuy (talk) 21:49, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Done No need to delete any redirect, as the talk page was empty. Am not an admin anyways, so I would have required admin action to delete. :)--Cerejota (talk) 22:12, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, didn't know you could move a page if there wasn't a talk page. Cheers for that. :) TheRetroGuy (talk) 22:18, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Other conditions also apply, see WP:MOR. Cheers!--Cerejota (talk) 22:49, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm, I'm not sure these are good moves (I saw the Yeates move); violating NPOV, Common Name and WP:EUPHEMISM. Some of them make sense. The Blakelock one does seem more of a death, whereas Yeates and O'Callaghan are clear (or at least clearly considered) murders. It feels like a dose of political correctness not to title these as murders :S --Errant (chat!) 10:19, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your comments. The fact that the term "political correctness" is used, makes me suspect that things are not as simple - PC is clearly a rather controversial POV :). WP:EUPHEMISM in my view doesn't apply in this case, one is not trying to change because "murder" offends some sensibilities in a moral sense - it is because "murder" is an inherently non-neutral term with strong emotional responses usually linked to political, ethnic, religious, and other POVs. Euphemism would be changing the title of a book called "The Murder of Blakelock" into "The Death of Blakelock" to censor the word, that is not what we are doing here, as we can find sources that support "death" instead of "murder", and even sources that use both, but "death" in the title!hardly a bastion of PC :). Of course, you agree on the Blakelock move, so this is preaching to the choir a bit, but I wanted to make the point about euphemism with an example you already agreed was a good move.
- On the other ones, more appropriate in my view to consider would be WP:SENSATION, part of event notability but whose principle is applicable all around. This invites us to consider the sensationalism of different cases when writing encyclopedia articles. I view sensationalism as violating NPOV, not to mention totally destroying quality, and the best way to avoid sensationalism is to watch out for certain words in certain strategic places - like titles and lede. But even is those other cases, the sources also support "death of". If there were no RS to support "death of", I would be persuaded at the futility of a rename as per both common names and euphemism, but while the majority of sources use "murder", some are less sensational and correctly separate the event, death, from the means of the event under criminal law "murder": Detectives investigating the death of Joanna Yeates.... I think we have a responsibility as an encyclopedia to make this nuance for our readers, to cut-through the yellowish tendencies of even otherwise reliable sources, and present the verifiable information in a way that doesn't compromise NPOV, the only content rule that matters.--Cerejota (talk) 19:08, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Murder of Billie-Jo Jenkins was a step too far. No reliable sources contend that she was not murdered. The failure of a court to convict someone does not imply she was not murdered, and neither should we with our page title in the absence of supporting sources.--Pontificalibus (talk) 20:31, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I get the point you make, but I contend that indeed a failure to convict is makes "murder" a POV even in cases were no one makes the claim. However the WP:RS are overwhelming in supporting your view, so I won't contend this move.--Cerejota (talk) 20:39, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Similarly, no reliable sources contend that Keith Blakelock wasn't murdered. A bad outcome of these page moves would be if some deaths that were clearly murder are called "murder," and some not. I wish we could agree to call all these articles "death of" so we have uniformity across the board, and not inadvertent POV caused by individual Wikipedians using different criteria. "Death of ..." implies nothing at all about the manner of death, or what Wikipedians think about it, so it's always a safe title, and if it's always used, no one gets offended. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 22:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree completely with you. However, in the case of Blakelock, there is indeed controversy around the circumstances and guilt of his death. There, for example, allegations of self-defense or otherwise justifiable homicide. Of course, a systemic solution that strongly advised for a "Death of" format would be ideal, but in lack of such a systemic view, a article by article evaluation should be made, in which we base ourselves. When there is WP:SNOW reasons not to contend a move, I rather pick my battles.--Cerejota (talk) 22:12, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I have to disagree with you about Blakelock. He was one unarmed person surrounded by about 50 people, and he was stabbed or cut 42 times by knives and machetes. Most of the stabbing was in his back. The attack included someone removing his protective helmet, and plunging a six-inch knife into his neck up to the hilt. It would be murder in any court.
- But I do agree with you about the general principle that these cases can be tricky. I wonder if we could post a request for comment somewhere asking that all articles about the death of individuals be called "Death of ..." no matter the circumstances. I'm not sure where best to post an RfC like that to get full attention. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 22:24, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You misunderstand me, I know this to be a terrible murder, no question about it - it just this belief is for me irrelevant when it comes to writing an NPOV encyclopedia. The rest we agree. There is already an RFC on this: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch#rfc_F869467. --Cerejota (talk) 22:40, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Excellent, I didn't see that. What would think about an RfC with one simple question: "Should all articles about the death of an individual be called "Death of ...", no matter the manner of death?" The best place for it would probably be Wikipedia talk:Article titles. Would posting that clash with your Words to watch RfC? SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 22:51, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think they are different things. The goal with the title thing, I think, would be to improve NPOV and reduce WP:NOTNEWS/WP:SENSATION issues that compromise NPOV, whereas the RFC I started is more geared towards the non-applicability of WP:EUPHEMISM to words that have nuances in meaning that affect content.--Cerejota (talk) 23:04, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem with naming all "murder" articles "Death of..", which sounds sensible on the face of it, is that we would then be giving a strong argument for renaming articles like Srebrenica massacre to Srebrenica deaths, and even The Holocaust to Deaths of Jews in Europe 1933-1945. I don't see any way to decide this on anything other than an article-by-article basis. --Pontificalibus (talk) 10:14, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Not really and that is a WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument that seldom flies - you can disagree with my argument, but I have been consistent in not having a view that systemic relief is in order, rather than a case-by-case view. The only systemic thing I am trying to do is the WP:EUPHEMISM stuff because its simply ridiculous.
- That said, lets evaluate the cases you raise:
- Srebrenica massacre - Be careful, WP:BEANS! That said, multiple people been accused and found guilty for this under the legal name of "massacre". In addition, while I know this is an off-the-cuff example, "deaths" in this case would indeed be an euphemism. It wasn't one or two or three people, it was thousands. The only non-euphemistic alternative is "mass killings". I could live with Srebrenica mass killings perfectly well, if the article mentioned in its lede that it is generally known as "Srebrenica massacre". However, I am perfectly happy with how it stands, because I do not see NPOV being compromised and there is no controversy that keeps us from improving the encyclopedia around the name.
- The Holocaust - this is more iffy in terms of the line of reasoning, as the name is indeed a partisan one, with a partisan origin, intended to find a poignantly lyrical word to describe the events, done in 1978. Before then (ie for forty years or so) it was indeed called "genocide against Jews" or some such descriptive name, so had wikipedia existed then, the title wouldn't be Holocaust (see for example, Holodomor - a retconning done to make it sound like "holocaust" and which is heavily disputed). However, here other considerations operate, among them WP:SNOW, there is not a chance in hell that article title can be changed unless its easily reverted vandalism. It would be the most epic snowball in the history of wikipedia.
- Both examples are Reductio ad absurdum - neither example describes murders as used in the "Murder of" articles, which are common criminality, not genocide or other forms of state or para-state mass murder.
- The point I am trying to make is that we should look at each article in its merits, a listen to reasoned argument, rather than making slippery slope arguments that bear little connection to actual practice or actual topics. I understand your concern, and this is why I am reluctant for a systemic solution, but these kinds of argument actually strengthen the case for a systemic solution rather than weakening it, at least in my view.--Cerejota (talk) 10:45, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have undone your non-admin closure of this discussion. There is clearly still an ongoing discussion about the issue, and no clear consensus has yet been reached.
On a broader note, looking back through your talk page, I notice that several of your non-admin closures have been reversed. Perhaps you don't understand the purpose and guidelines for a non-admin closure, and you should review them here. Until you are fully familiar with the process, you might want to just avoid it altogether. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:05, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- And many more also sustained, however in this case it is a clear keep - no controversy. I am sorry, but while I am indeed open to reasonable criticism, as you can see, I simply cannot see this: If after two weeks of debate the !v are 4-1, with only keeps after the the re-listing, and the comments being reasonable, and no SPAs and otherwise suspect users are involved, and no debate of substance since the relist. Its a pile-on of a debate that has run its course. On what basis do you argue this is controversial or wrong?
- Of course, you can re-open it, and I won't dispute that, but then the rules need to be re-written, because you seem to argue that essentially only SNOW and Re-list is an acceptable closure, and that is not what the rules say. Also, when you revert a closure, also revert the article and the notices. --Cerejota (talk) 13:17, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The first rule in Wikipedia:Non-admin closure defining appropriate closures reads:
- Clear keep outcomes after a full listing period (stated in the instructions to each XfD, this is usually seven days), absent any contentious debate among participants. This also extends to other clear closes in which the final task can be performed by a non-admin i.e. Redirect or Merge (when a history merge or deletion is not required).
- The discussion in question still had an ongoing "contentious debate" over the validity of sources, and so, fails to meet this criteriaon. Nothing needs to be rewritten; existing rules just need to be adhered to. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:25, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There was no ongoing substantial debate, and the article was listed for two weeks. Sometimes, you have to stop beating the dead horse. I ask you to reconsider your re-version for the closure and go to DRV is you feel its in error, because your explanation is not convincing. --Cerejota (talk) 13:29, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That is by your definition of substantial debate, I suppose. The discussion between Falcador, DeVerm and Drdisque regarding the validity of coverage by Speed Network, ongoing even as of today, is insubstantial, I suppose? This is exactly the type of discussion that should not be open to non-admin closure. At best, this is a non-consensus closure, but I would leave that call to an admin as well. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:34, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree "non-consensus" closes should be left for admins, but why you think this was "no-consensus"? For me, non-consensus is when valid points are made on policy on both sides, but neither comes out strong or dominant in a significant way (60-70%). In this discussion, both sides made good policy based arguments, but one side clearly came ahead in discussion, in particular after re-list. --Cerejota (talk) 13:45, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Each keep !vote after the relist was debated with equally valid arguments. To be sure, only keep !votes were received, but they were not universally accepted. I don't argue that the article should be deleted (I voted keep in the first place); I only argue that the outcome of this discussion requires an evaluation of all of the arguments relative to the policies, and that is a job that is reserved to admins. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:48, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Why not add that into Wikipedia:Non-admin_closure#Inappropriate_closures: Outcomes of the discussion that require an evaluation of all of the arguments relative to the policies? Sure would have saved me some hand-holding :). --Cerejota (talk) 13:52, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, no change to existing policy is needed, only a strict adherence to it. Since substantial debate was still ongoing, the discussion was not an appropriate candidate for non-admin closure. I sense from this discussion and others that have preceded that you are something of an activist for expanding the scope of non-admin closures. If you feel this is needed, you should take up the matter at the appropriate forum. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:03, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You are under a mistaken impression, and see no way how you could arrive to that conclusion - simply because I ask questions? I am, however, big on clarity. --Cerejota (talk) 14:11, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, just as I pressed the "no consensus"-button I realized that you relisted this one today and not a week ago. If you still think it could use another week let me know and I'll be happy to revert myself. Cheers / Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 14:35, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well it only had two arguments, but none after first relist, so its your call, I guess?--Cerejota (talk) 14:41, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It really doesn't matter to me, so if you don't feel strongly about it I guess we can just leave it for now. In case it doesn't improve it's likely to be relisted I suppose. / Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 15:11, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For the record the user Cerejota repeatedly accuses me of wrong doing, after i replied to his accusations at my user page and refuses so far to provide me with a wiki rule which would explain his accusations. Looking at his record and what other users say about him he seems to do this with an agenda, systematically to disturb the wikipedia editing from certain users. Gise-354x (talk) 22:34, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I suggest you WP:AGF, and I did provide you with a link to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate_change#Climate_change:_discretionary_sanctions. I also told you about 3RR, without a link, but that is trivial, as the sanctions are in effect.--Cerejota (talk) 22:36, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- es i act in good faith, do you? You point me to WP:AGF and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate_change#Climate_change:_discretionary_sanctions, now that has nothing to do with my additions to the wikipedia entry http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy For the last time i ask you to provide me the RULE you claim prevents me from editing the wikipage Gise-354x (talk) 22:49, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Please look at the talk page and read Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate_change#Climate_change:_discretionary_sanctions carefully, where it says "Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident placed under a 1RR restriction. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 22:47, 4 January 2010 (UTC)". I already, before you posted the above, provided you with an additional wikilink to WP:3RR. If you read it, you will learn what 1RR means.--Cerejota (talk) 22:55, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I want to thank you for being there for me. You are a true friend who appreciates my work here. I know that I made a mistake, but even though I tried to solve things in a civil manner [2] I ended up in ANI, where I was accussed of everything form being a "Killer" to being a "Mad Man". I have been under a lot of preasure, but knowing that I have friends like you and that my work here is appreciated, not only by hundreds of readers and various government institutions in the US and Puerto Rico, but by a member of the Salvdorean Legislature. Here is a message which I received recently:
"Hola, mi nombre es Lorena Varela, salvadoreña trabajo en la Asamblea Legislativa de mi país, colaborando con la Comisión de Salud. He leído lo que usted hace en su país, que es conservar y trasladar sus raíces a las nuevas generaciones de descendencia boricua fuera de sus fronteras."
"Me parece una labor muy ejemplificante para los latinos que algunas veces viviendo fuera de nuestros países, se olvidan de donde vienen y para donde van, porque al perder nuestras identidades perdemos el rumbo de nuestras vidas; sí tenemos que aprovechar las oportunidades que se nos dan en otros lugares pero jamás olvidar nuestro orígenes."
"Le deseo toda clase de bendiciones en su labor." Atentamente, Honorable Lorena Varela
Thank you once more,
Tony the Marine (talk) 04:54, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that you removed a link here http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy&diff=445657657&oldid=445628950 without giving further explanation other than, quote "inappropriate categorization". What do you mean by this? Please provide a valid reason for the removal or re add the link. Gise-354x (talk) 19:29, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You said that the other guy was wrong in removing it, and I disagree with your argument (or "categorization") of his removal. You do not have to agree with a revert for it to be a valid one, and most certainly your revert of his removal I feel ignored the valid point raised in his edit summary. My apologies if this was not a clear edit summary, but not everything needs to be WP:TLDR.--Cerejota (talk) 00:35, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed you started a sockpuppet investigation yesterday, i wonder why you don't bother informing me, when you accuse me of being a sockpuppet. I find that quiet insulting. Please explain it better here http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Yopienso Gise-354x (talk) 19:32, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I wondered that, too, Gise, but found notification of an SPI is not given. Yopienso (talk) 19:45, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to hear what you think at Talk:Anders_Behring_Breivik#Proposed_compromise. causa sui (talk) 21:06, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Cerejota. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of S.S. Todi Calcio, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: A7 speedy has already been declined, see history. Thank you. JohnCD (talk) 13:01, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I've undone your non-admin closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fool's Gold Loaf (2nd nomination). The outcome was not a consensus to keep, but rather no consensus. Another editor recently brought to my attention another incorrect closure by you, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monmouth University Polling Institute, at User talk:Sandstein#AFD. Looking at your most recent edits, I see more potentially problematic closures by you, including Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maltese Brazilian, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sandra Larsson
Please choose the discussions you close more carefully, as per WP:NACD, "close calls and controversial decisions are better left to an administrator." If you want to regularly close AfDs, including complicated ones, please consider standing for administrator first. Thanks, Sandstein 08:03, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your observations.
- Sandra Larsson is clearly SNOW, or at least I thought so. Why wasn't it?
- Monmouth was a keeper, and non-controversially so, at least by my count, 4-2 (including nom) and the only !v after relist being keep, with a full week for other opinions to emerge - and the arguments being all backing notability upon sources, and long contributions. So I would need guidance as to why this was controversial.
- Maltese was a redirect, not a keep - and here I do need clarification from you, because what would be the difference between a redirect and a delete, beyond the technical? In effect, had this been deleted, it could have been recreated as a useful redirect, and SNOW kept. So if I did something wrong, I apologize, but I need clarification as to what I did wrong.
Due to my involvement in ARBPIA, I have way too many enemies to be an admin, in spite of having done more policy edits, started more Wikiprojects (including WikiProject Wiki-Books), and probabiy donated more money than most vanity admins that populate the Pokemon pages. So thats out of the question. But I like the intellectual exercise of AfD closing, RFC closing, etc, so any guidance is welcome, I know you sort a AfD specialist.--Cerejota (talk) 08:19, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- And yes I realize my mistake at Fools Gold... I didn't see a delete. Oooops...--Cerejota (talk) 08:22, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sandra Larsson is not even close to SNOW. Monmouth University Polling Institute is not a keep either (it's a no consensus if you have to close it now). I reopened both. T. Canens (talk) 10:06, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Care to explain why not?--Cerejota (talk) 10:10, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- For Sandra Larsson: the keeps are pretty much proof by assertion on the GNG and NACTOR#3 point - what you have is pretty much a verbatim recitation of the guideline and the assertion that she meets it, without any kind of analysis, and the nominator is concededly correct on NACTOR#1; the BLP1E point wasn't really addressed by the keeps either (and BLP1E, being a policy, can trump GNG even if it were satisfied). Plus, when you have people split 2-1 it is almost certainly never going to be SNOW anyway.
For Monmonth: if you are going to count noses, you need to exclude the SPAs - and that leads to a 2-2 split; the SPA keeps are pretty crappy anyway in terms of quality and can and should be disregarded. Between the non-SPAs opinions are divided, with no side having the clear upper hand, so it's a no consensus if you have to close it now, though my practice is generally to relist 2-2 splits. T. Canens (talk) 11:47, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for the thorough comments. Lesson about SPAs learned - I was AGF in too much then - and about the clarification on BLP1E vs GNG, I have always thought that in terms of inclusion, barring NOTNEWS, GNG thrumped BLP1E - i'll take that into account. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 11:52, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for taking our advice in good spirit. I agree with T.Canens and add that you should probably less readily consider that a consensus exists. Closers are not empowered to impose their own opinion as consensus. My personal rule of thumb is that I discount all clearly invalid opinions (does not address policy issues, personal attacks etc.) and most SPAs (unless they make good policy-based arguments), then check whether there is any problem that mandates deletion regardless of consensus (e.g. copyvio, unsourced BLP), and then check whether there's a 2/3 majority of the remaining opinions for either keep or delete; if yes then that's the consensus; otherwise it's no consensus. In close cases I may assign some opinions more or less weight depending on how well they conform to policies or guidelines, but that's rare; in my opinion non-admins should be very cautious in closing discussions other than near-unanimous keep, redirect or merge outcomes. Sandstein 16:19, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I appreciate any advice given in good spirit! Cheers!--Cerejota (talk) 23:27, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What Sandstein said. FYI, my general rule for NACs is that if you need to think about the close after quickly reading through the debate once (or find it necessary to write a rationale), it's probably a bad NAC candidate. T. Canens (talk) 00:15, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I can dig that. So of my recent set of closes, what would you describe as better?--Cerejota (talk) 00:20, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sylvie Bodorová, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zawinski's law of software envelopment and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Chobrakit are all fine. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Warrior Nun Areala characters is borderline - I'd have relisted that one for more discussion. T. Canens (talk) 03:46, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for that. I made a question above about the difference between a redirect and a delete as a result of discussion, regarding "Maltese Brazilian". Could you tell me? Thanks in advance...--Cerejota (talk) 10:14, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Apologies about the delay. I'm traveling and so Internet access is a bit sporadic.
Personally, I don't see a big problem with that one. Admins sometimes delete the page history before redirecting a page - I usually do it if it has been redirected before but the redirection has been reverted, or if there are BLP/copyvio/etc. in the history. Another issue here is that pretty much no one explicitly suggested a redirect in the debate, so many may perceive the close as a "supervote", especially since your rationale sounds like you are picking your favorite argument instead of actually interpreting the consensus of the discussion. In this case, though, the redirect suggestion is implicit in the merge and while the deletes say that there's nothing to merge they didn't say anything that would suggest that a redirect is inappropriate. Sandstein may have a different view, though, so you might want to ask him as well. T. Canens (talk) 15:24, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Cerejota. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Peter Pepper (musician), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: There's additional sources now that weren't included last time it was created. Needs to go back to AfD if necessary. I'll move it back to where is should be (without the disam). Thank you. GedUK 07:29, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey, sorry about that, I realise that you just retagged it. I'll notify the original tagger as well. GedUK 07:31, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No worry, you are being conscientious, most decliners don't bother ;) Can you please salt the disam? Even if the article is kept this time, there is no reason to have it, but if its deleted, there is a good chance it would be recreated under that name. Or I am being to cautious?--Cerejota (talk) 07:32, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Errm, not sure really. I think it's best to leave it for now. If it gets renominated for AfD, and if it's then deleted, the disam will need to be deleted and probably salted. I'll keep an eye on it, but it's probably unnecessary for now. I'd rather leave the disam so that the page creator knows where the page is now and doesn't try and recreate it somewhere else. GedUK 07:35, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Coolio, working on the AfD now :) --Cerejota (talk) 07:40, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Serie D is the top level of Italian amateur football. Whjether it is notable i leave to those interested in the sport, but it is certainly at least a claim to notability. DGG ( talk ) 15:39, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I changed it from a redirect because Jeff Phillips is more than just a former member of Hollywood Undead. He works very hard on biodiesel conversions and has been featured on CNN and in news papers such as the NY Post and I have provided these sources. I believe that since he is MORE than just a former member of a popular band, he deserves to be known. Please consider this information before continuing a pursuit for this page's deletion.
GeisterXfahrer (talk) 16:14, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have done everything I can to provide a multitude of sources regarding this musician; from news articles to critical reviews to history. I believe that this page should be allowed to stay on Wikipedia because the rules have been followed and everything written is properly cited. Please message me personally before recommending my pages for deletion.
GeisterXfahrer (talk) 16:17, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- (Talk page stalker) For both of these comments the correct place to make them is the Articles for deletion page, I suggest that you state your reasons there for keeping the article.
- --Mrmatiko (talk) 16:28, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Might I ask why you're closing this AfD as a relist when it's a fairly obvious keep? — Joseph Fox 00:36, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I note also that you seem to be closing very tight debates and would like to remind you this is generally an administrator's role. You are welcome, of course, to become one. — Joseph Fox 00:43, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This, too is not "beyond doubt a clear keep" as required by the non-admin closure guideline. — Joseph Fox 00:46, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Because not enough unique arguments happened? Is a relist controversial?--Cerejota (talk) 00:58, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)::Yeah I thought it (J Robinson) was less controversial, still honing my "feel" for that. I know that for you jaded admins its easy, but it takes some using to suspending mental partisanship to make an objective judgement - figuring out SPAs and invalid !vs figuring out if there is a need to evaluate policy and other reasons not to close as admin. And on RfA, I don't think I have a snowball's chance in hell to be admin, not because I would suck at it, but because I have a tendency to edit controversial topics. NPOV warriors are like Dangerfield, can't get no respect. ;)--Cerejota (talk) 00:58, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry to take this tone, but you simply cannot close anything controversial (or even anything that isn't clear-cut) if you are not an administrator. Please read the essay before doing so again. Sorry to hear about your chances at RfA, but never say never, and all that. — Joseph Fox 01:02, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't get a bad tone from you, then again I have been called many names :P I know I shouldn't close controversial stuff. I agree. I am just getting a feel as to what is considered controversial.--Cerejota (talk) 01:07, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, that's fine, I just don't want to come across high-and-mighty. As I say, though, please only focus on the obvious stuff while you're still without the appropriate rights. ¡Gracias! :) — Joseph Fox 01:08, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted your question in the edit review, because quite frankly this is not how edit reviews are done. If you wish to participate, please look down the list of open reviews and get a feel of how the process works. If you have a question for me, feel free to ask anything in my talk page, and if you want to add a review, feel free to do so - although given our history I am not completely sure I might not be skeptical of what you have to say. --Cerejota (talk) 17:07, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I just noticed the review and believed it was ok to post questions. I confess I'm not familiar with the process at all. I'll take some time to learn about it. With some embarrassment, I apologize for the unintended disruption. --damiens.rf 18:22, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- no problem. --Cerejota (talk) 18:37, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The situation with the image is the following: Let's assume that the image is deleted and that the images of the statue and the WW I one are not. We then have two images in the article which is fine up until someone comes along and nominates the image of the statue for deletion. You see according to copyright laws the copyright of the statue belongs to the creator (artist) and no one has the right to reproduce the picture as in free use unless they have permission from the copyright holder (The artist) to do so. The person that uploaded the image does not own the copyright to that statue and the image can therefore be deleted as a copyright vio. I know because the picture which I took in Carolina of the statue of Jesus T. Pinero was deleted because of what I just finished saying and there was nothing that I could do. That is unless that statue was created before 1923 and it certainly wasn't so. If this happens then the only image there would be the WW I image and that is why I believe that the image which reflects him as he was in his hey-days should be kept. Tony the Marine (talk) 22:59, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- We re-upload the NF image and claim the exemption as we are doing now. We agree that this meets NFCC#1 because of the representation it makes, it represents a different period in which the illustrative qualities are simply not there. Since this is being deleted under the presumption that a free alternative was found, if the previously available free alternative is no longer available and not possible to replace then we have a chance. But arguing NFCC while a free alternative, however tenuous the claim might be, is available is not possible, period. --Cerejota (talk) 23:07, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Which is the free alternative, the statue one? Is the uploader Uer:Cartof the sculptor who created the bust and who therefore owns the copyright? I'm just saying that the picture can be subject to deletion, ask "Damians", he knows about this. Remember it was the same situation when I uploaded an image of the painting of Capt. Euripdes Rubio which I uploaded, believing that there would be no problems since I was the person who that took the picture. What happened? It turns out that I would have needed the permission of the artist who painted the picture and owner of it's copyright in order to upload it and it was eventually deleted. Tony the Marine (talk) 00:06, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I know. But as long as that image exists in the commons, it is considered a free alternative, there is nothing we can do about it except be patient. Y prende tu email ;) --Cerejota (talk) 00:09, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect User:Ling.Nut/User DGAF2. Since you had some involvement with the User:Ling.Nut/User DGAF2 redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Cerejota (talk) 03:18, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Cerejota.
I leave this message because I submitted an article about IPA Adriatic Cross-Border Cooperation Programme and I saw that you nominated it for deletion.
I would to know what is the problem. It is a simple article of presentation of an European Cooperation Programme.
Thank you for the explanation.
Cluppic — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.47.25.138 (talk) 08:48, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In regard to this page, you requested {{db-author}}. However, I can't apply that unless I can confirm that you are the author of the page, who was User:Ling.Nut. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:54, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not the author, but the page is blanked, and I was not aware a userspace exception was in place at CSD. So WP:U2?--Cerejota (talk) 15:50, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There is an open merger discussion, participate on it, but the removal of the template is an interruption of normal process, and uncalled for. Anyone can request a merger discussion, and until an uninvolved party removes it and closes the discussion such templates should remain.--Cerejota (talk) 22:03, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There actually isn't an open merger discussion. It was mistakenly opened by another editor because the wrong tag was used. You need to actually look at the tags and the discussion. There is no active proposal to merge the article. Viriditas (talk) 22:05, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There is now a proper discussion, under the proper header, even if its failed, and I just participated in it, and DTTR doesn't say anything about not using the templates as a basis for a further argument, as I did (by mistake I didn't put my text inside of the template). The point remains, removing merger tags is only to be done by uninvolved parties or when there is a clear error, which this case is not. You need to tone down the self-righteousness, its making your reading comprehension suffer...--Cerejota (talk) 22:15, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, there is no proper discussion since there was never a proper proposal for a merge. The merge proposal thread was started by another editor who opposed a non-existent proposal. And yes, there is a clear error here, which is why I removed the tag.[3] It's not a merge. Viriditas (talk) 22:19, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You are still missing the point: You are involved. You do not do things like this on your own. You get an un-involved party to do it for you, at best. But a quick look at the debate shows that you are misrepresenting it.--Cerejota (talk) 22:26, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm involved in a discussion over a proposal I didn't propose or support? Neat! Viriditas (talk) 22:30, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Read WP:INVOLVED. Yes you are involved, as am I.--Cerejota (talk) 22:33, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Know it, love it, bought the book and saw the film. I'm not involved in a non-discussion about a non-proposal that I neither support nor oppose. Viriditas (talk) 22:37, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes you are: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate_change#Climate_change:_discretionary_sanctions. Both articles as in the "Climate change" topic area, any editor with significant participation is by definition is involved in the topic area. Any process in the topic area is part of being involved, regardless of how direct this involvement is. Ask an uninvolved admin or experienced user if you do not take my word for it.--Cerejota (talk) 22:42, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- My removal of the erroneous merge tag was entirely appropriate and I did not violate any guideline, policy, or restriction. Viriditas (talk) 22:47, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Facepalm --Cerejota (talk) 22:50, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would've hoped that you would be able to practice the dogma (catma?) of the kitteh yourself, but hey.... ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 05:52, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I do, so I'll give you a chance: experience teaches that rarely do people with horses in a race are able to be objective in their consideration for the behavior of those backing other horses. For example, assume good faith that an edit summary was not meant as an attack, even when perhaps some care should have been taken. A personal attack requires willful and evil intention to hurt a person. That was not the intent, and is obvious from my posted text.--Cerejota (talk) 05:59, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- One must consider how words may be taken by other parties before using potentially nasty language. My "horse" is more of a pony here; my participation on that particular talkpage was transient. I also don't think that participation in a debate disqualifies one from pointing out incivility in a debate. My message stands: "shut the fuck up" is in and of itself an offensive expression intended to belittle another person – "regardless of the manner in which it is done." Don't use it. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 06:09, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- And my point is that "stfu" is used informally in a much less harsh manner than you suggest, as shorthand for example, and that perhaps you are didn't consider that possibility, edged on by your equestrian in the race. And that instead of asking for a clarification, you assumed bad faith. --Cerejota (talk) 06:16, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I said that your language was unnecessarily rude and confrontational and that it may cross the border into NPA. I didn't template you or take you to ANI, I told you to be more careful. I don't think that most personal-attackers go into an argument thinking "muahaha, I am going to make personal attacks", but end up using language that may not seem harsh to them, but may be viewed as such by another person. I'd have let the matter rest if you had not acted so defiantly to my reminder.
- A brusque "point it out or STFU" is not what I consider to fall under the definition of "less harsh", and I would point this out regardless of whether or not I was involved in this less-than-significant dispute. I posted two comments, neither of which were in the thread in question. Don't cast me as an antagonist here. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 06:28, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Anyway, it's 2:30 in the morning where I am, so this will have to sit overnight. In the meantime, I encourage you to take a step back and try to view what you say from a detached perspective before inadvertently stirring up mud. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 06:32, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi C, On a certain talk page I expressed my opinion that another editor's efforts were disruptive. I'm replying here to not fan any flames there. Your reply to me said "you are stretching the definition of disruption here a bit. No one doubts that (a certain other editor) is acting in good faith, and that is enough to know there is no disruption.
First, APPLAUSE and CHEERS for the rest of that comment, omitted here, that moved us along toward solution seeking.
I just wanted to say the italicized part above is in direct contradiction to the last paragraph in the lede at WP:DISRUPT
- "The fact that the disruption is done in good faith does not change the fact that it is disruptive and harmful to Wikipedia."
- "Disruptive editing is not always intentional. An editor may be accidentally disruptive because he or she doesn't understand how to correctly edit a page" (in the case in question, that would mean how to use certain maintenance tags)
g'day to you! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:30, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you!--Cerejota (talk) 23:45, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Cerejota. I see that you've been making some excellent progress with Wikipedia:RfA reform 2011/Sysop on request and I hope you don't mind me mentioning it in an update on RfA reform. It'll mean that members of the task force may pop along and give you a bit of feedback. Have you considered joining the task force by the way? WormTT · (talk) 09:47, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I took a bit of a break because hurricaine adrenaline is better to make lame "witty" comments and facepalming at ANI. Its not completely ready for prime time, but this is a wiki and it is not in userspace for a reason :P And how do I join the task force? I like the idea so yeah count me in.--Cerejota (talk) 09:54, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, the idea of the task force is that we develop proposals before putting them up before the community - so it'll be probably half a dozen extra pairs of eyes on the matter. To join up, just drop your name at Wikipedia:RfA reform 2011/Task force and any time we do an update we'll make sure you're included. Don't worry, there's no rush on getting the proposal finished - it's much better to get something that the community will accept than to rush it and bodge it. It is possible that a couple of people will just come and say "hate it" - don't be disheartened, radical reform has that effect, and there's clearly a push for some radical reform. WormTT · (talk) 09:58, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The proposal is ready for discussion, butchering and lots and lots of love :P--Cerejota (talk) 11:00, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
IPA Adriatic Cross-Border Cooperation Programme
Hi Cerejota. I leave this message because I submitted an article about IPA Adriatic Cross-Border Cooperation Programme and I saw that you nominated it for deletion. I would to know what is the problem. It is a simple article of presentation of an European Cooperation Programme. I create also a link to ERDF Fund as Operational Programme Italy-MAritime France 2007-2013. What's the difference? Thank you for the explanation. Cluppic — — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cluppic (talk • contribs) 11:40, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Basically, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. I placed some useful links that explain what Wikipedia is about in a welcome message on the top of your talkpage, but specifically the reasons the article is not suitable for Wikipedia is because it doesn't meet the General Notability Guideline. I am sure this exists, and perhaps its useful, but it is not notable. This is one of the most basic, but not the only, criteria for inclusion. Please follow and read the link, and it would be obvious why the article will be deleted. --Cerejota (talk) 17:56, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You must have missed the word "brief" in the RFC directions that say to "Include a brief, neutral statement of the issue below the template, and sign it with ~~~~" The RFC bot spammed your entire multi-section complaint to the RFC page, all the way down through the Support section. I've fixed it for you so that it will only include the summary. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:52, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't miss it, I thought the bot ignored the further sectioning. Perhaps it needs to, as that is a severe limitation on being able to structure an RFC before the bot gets to it. Thanks for fixing it though, its a bit embarrassing ;)--Cerejota (talk) 23:57, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The bot handles sectioning with less grace than we might all wish.
- It's a common problem, actually. I skim through most of the RFCs about once a month to find and fix these things. The good news is that the bot runs frequently, and all you have to do is give it an extra date stamp. It will then automatically fix everything on its next run. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:38, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the tip! BTW why you are not an admin?--Cerejota (talk) 00:47, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Too much common sense? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:49, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That is why you should be one hahahahahaha--Cerejota (talk) 00:53, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Cerejota. There has been a resurgence of edit warring over the infobox location details in 2011 England riots. To try to stabilise this, and raise another closely related issue, I've started a discussion topic here: Talk:2011 England riots#Location details, widespread pattern of arrests. I'd be grateful if you would come and comment. Thanks. Rubywine . talk 01:13, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just wanted tp let you know that I moved your announcement about the Verifiability RfC to WP:AN, as it's not an incident and doesn't require admin action, so shouldn't be on WP:ANI. Best, Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:19, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
