This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
I have closed as speedy keep. Dream Focus, while inartful in his approach, is convincing in his argument, and besides the initial approach, has been helpful and concerned. SilkTork's accusations poison the well, and keep us from discussing the matters at heart with a distraction.
When a PROD fails the next step shouldn't be automatically an AfD, it can be a number of other less extreme measures, and . As the snowball AfD discussion shows, the PROD failed for a reason, there is consensus that the topic needs to be addressed in wikipedia. That it warrants its own article or as a section of another article is an open question that hopefully will be discussed in the article's talk. I invite all of you to take it there.--Cerejota (talk) 18:40, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm impressed that you had the confidence to do that, especially as it was your first AfD close. Well done. Some points: Technically it wasn't a Speedy Keep as it didn't meet the criteria of WP:Speedy keep and it had had seven days discussion. Also, while it does happen, it is not acceptable to encourage bad faith comments, let alone make one yourself, especially when you are failing to understand the principle behind the nomination. I would also suggest you check for typos. I sometimes make mistakes myself, and have to go back and make amends. "then belong" should be "they belong"; it is best to be consistent - you have "merger discussions" and "Merge discussion" - the second one is the more common and fits with Wikipedia usage; and "Merge discussion in article is recommended" is unclear. Notifying the nominator of the outcome is a nice touch. SilkTork✔Tea time20:46, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your response and comments. Let me clarify and elaborate some things:
1) Not my first close, although my first in a long time. It did meet the criteria of Speedy Keep, specifically point 2 and 4 of the speedy keep criteria, besides the general principle that no un-involved editor argued for deletion (and in a first for me, not even the yourself as nominator agreed with deletion). Failure of editors to close earlier is a reflection of the busy nature of AfD. Had I seen this article nom on July 12, I would have speedy kept then. It was not a Keep because the nomination was a failure, and closing it as Keep would have been admitting that the nomination was a legitimate one as per process. You clearly disagree with this, so you can either grudgingly accept it (and perhaps get some lessons), or you can seek reversal using the Deletion Review process.
2) I do not fail to understand the principle behind your nomination, I just think it is a wrong principle that wastes the time of the AfD process, and furthermore that the AfD, by your own comment in the nomination, and now in this thread, was not because the article met any deletion criteria, but to make a point of resolving an ambiguity by using the AfD process, one of the things that the AfD process is precisely not to be used for.
3) Need I remind you aof the common sense principle that failure to agree is not necessarily a failure to understand. In addition, disagreement doesn't imply a personal attack or commentary on personal capacity or knowledge. Methinks ya needs to chill, brah.
5) I suggest you take a look at Polylogism, an article that has much worse issues that Low poly ever has and for which I have raised issues for over two years, yet never considered AfD to resolve them or to make a point. What I do is be bold in editing and to raise concerns and argue them in the article talk page, trusting my fellow editors to do the right thing, and if they don't then use DR and etc. There is no deadline, brah. However, keeping/merging and improving is always in my view better than deleting and forgetting.
What you are doing is pointy, and pointing this out is neither a personal attack nor a lack of assuming good faith - people can be disruptive in good faith and pointing out negative behavior is not a personal attack if the behavior is true. But being pointy is criteria 2 for speedy keep and you are being disruptive even if you don't realize it.
In the future, please keep responses to anything I say (and perhaps consider it for all other editors) to a single talk page. We have a talkback (TB) system, learn to use it. With Twinkle its actually painless. Since you duped the posting in your talk to mine, I am responding in both places, but please from now on keep your responses in your talk page, notifying me via TB if need be. --Cerejota (talk) 22:02, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not overly impressed with the way you closed that deletion discussion, either. It's was going to be an obvious keep, so I'm not going reopen it, but in the future I suggest are little more cautious and eloquent with your "closing statement". —Ruud22:31, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Calling it a "bad[-faith?] nom[ination]". SilkTork noted some concerns on which grounds the article might have been deleted or merged. The nomination seems perfectly reasonable to me. Therefore it also wasn't really a candidate for a speedy keep, which almost by definition it wasn't any more after several days. —Ruud22:50, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your quick elaboration. I can see that ambiguity of "bad nom" as a term. I will be more careful moving forward, as certainly I didn't mean to imply bad faith (the nom was clearly and entirely good faith), but was bad in procedural sense, as per my closing statement (and Dream Focus' keep statement) and my elaboration above and in SilkTork's talk page.
I do have a concern around "speedy keep", which unless you can point me to a discussion that already clarifies this matter from a consensus perspective I might raise as an RfC or some such. I already explained why I closed "speedy keep" rather than "keep". As I understand it, the main difference between a speedy keep and a keep is not solely timing, but also how !v are viewed - in fact, I don't agree that by definition a speedy keep cannot happen . A speedy keep can happen at any point of the AfD if it meets the criteria for SK. This is because SK is not the same as WP:SNOW, which is generally done after 24 hours and a number of !v. In essence, had I seen this on July 13, I would have snowed it in, but since I couldn't, I went with second best, which was SK. A keep, as I already argued, would have meant saying the nomination was in procedural terms correct, something I don't think is correct.
So... since you are another person who thinks it was a keep, but that it was correct in procedural terms, perhaps you can explain to me how is my reasoning faulty, something that SilkTork has so far failed to address, focusing instead on spelling mistakes and some such.
I have replied on my talkpage. My normal procedure is to leave a carbon copy here (as it's quick and easy and gives you a record), but you preferred I simply let you know instead, and I am willing to respect that. SilkTork✔Tea time23:05, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Posting my earlier response here as you indicate above that you have not seen it:
I understand clearly that you disagreed with my taking the article to AfD, though I am less clear on why you feel that I made a mistake in doing that, or why you feel it was disruptive. I am also not clear on why this matters so much to you, but I will endeavour to explain my thinking. I was going through Category:Proposed deletion (as I am at the moment), and deleting expired Prods that met the appropriate criteria, removing the Prod tags from articles that I could clean up, and taking articles to AfD where they did not meet Prod criteria but there was some remaining doubt. This is, as you will note in Wikipedia:Prod#Deletion, recommended procedure. When I came upon Low poly, it had been proposed for deletion by User:Thumperward, an experienced and respected admin, for valid concerns, and it was an unsourced article. However, I did a search and found some sources, so I didn't think it met a straightforward deletion; however, the main source I did find did seem to be more of minor mention as part of a larger picture, than something significant enough for a full standalone article. The topic, and the nature of the sources, along with Thumperward's rationale led me to feel that this was a topic that would benefit from a wider discussion. I had no strong views either way. I felt it was a borderline case. So I followed the guideline and put it on AfD for wider discussion, explaining the circumstances, and then put the cite I had found in the article. This is standard procedure. I and other admins on Prod patrol have been doing this for years. Does that help you at all? SilkTork✔Tea time22:58, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(At the time of my posting I had not seen it, but I just posted a response. I suggest you have some patience with reponses, and again request you respect my wishes for centralized discussion. I am replying here cause I want to tb you.)
So you jumped to AfD instead of deciding to deal with the concerns raised! You see my point? Just because you *can* doesn't mean you have to. Clearly this neologism is a worthy contribution that shouldn't be eliminated. What is ambiguous is if we merge it to another article or if we fix it as a stand-alone article. Deletion should have never been in the cards, and the PROD was in itself bad, as this not a hoax, fringe, or unsourceable unfixable OR - it is a specialist neologism. Bottom line: the way to deal with a bad prod is not to make a bad afd... and no matter how long-standing, well-respected, and superhuman an admin is, s/he will make mistakes from time to time that need to be fixed.--Cerejota (talk) 00:40, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Xover (talk) 23:16, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anders Behring Breivik (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Merrill Stubing (talk) 18:03, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sources (RE Breivik)
You said other sources supported the info in the infobox yet you did not indicate what sources. And why can't we use a primary source for his birth date? Pristino (talk) 03:16, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty much any source on him describes him as Norwegian, it is a fact not in controversy, so it can remain even without a source. His profession is less mentioned, but also likewise is mentioned in many sources and not private information or subjected to controversy.
His date of birth, how ever, has only been published in the manifesto, not even in the sources that talk about a manifesto. The reason why we shouldn't use a primary source is because this a biography of a living person, and we have to be careful to balance our need for information with a respect to the living person's privacy, in BLPs special rules apply, in particular with such private information, even if the person is otherwise open to scrutiny. If secondary or tertiary reliable sources, however, breach this privacy in a verifiable way, then we have no choice but to include it.--Cerejota (talk) 03:23, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter he published it himself, its still a primary source, and hence we do not know what the RS are making of it - it is a breach of privacy because it is information that only so far the readers of the primary material are supposed to know, not the readers of wikipedia. Once a RS makes the ethical jump, then we use the RS because that way we are not making the breach, they are. Our standards are supposed to be determined by what RS say, not what we find out on our own. Please read WP:OR.--Cerejota (talk) 03:31, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Daily Mail has republished pages from the manifesto in full, (LINK) including that of his personal data. Is this the ethical jump you need to use the info on Wikipedia? Pristino (talk) 03:34, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There's very obviously a dispute about the neutrality of the article - in particular the wording in the lede - going on the discussion page at the moment. So your removal of the NPOV tag was completely unjustified. The fact that this is a current event rather than something with "history" (whatever that means) appears to be completely irrelevant. I would appreciate it if you restored the tag.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:20, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I understood that. See the issue is there is nothing about neutrality about that. No reliable sources are claiming this as false, and the sources presented are all generally known to be pro-Zionist themselves (Jpost, JTA etc). This means there is no neutrality issues present, as neutrality implies two sides of a debate in the reliable sources. Such other side is not present, hence no neutrality issues - there is no debate on neutrality. There is a debate on your part on inclusion of verifiable, reliable sources interpretation of Breivik's own words, and that is another matter. --Cerejota (talk) 23:40, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, the problem is that the sources don't call him "Zionist". They say his manifesto has some "Zionist" stuff in it. Two different things. Additionally, this is obviously a sick individual who also calls himself a "Knight Templar". You can't take his words at face value. This should be obvious to anyone who's not out to push an agenda and (disgustingly) try to use this tragic incident to advance some political cause. Hence, it's not neutral. The fact that you happen to fall on a particular side of a neutrality debate does not mean that such a debate does not exist.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:43, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, because there's no question about whether the sources can be verified. They can. It's just that 1) they don't say what the Wikipedia article claims they say and 2) they are given undue weight given the nature of the article topic.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:55, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So make them say what they actually say. On the "due weight" stuff, since we are talking just a couple of words, it is a verifiability issue: does the reliable sources give this enought notability for inclusion? The WP:UNDUE provision is clearly there to keep discussion of WP:FRINGE from overtaking the actual topic. If there was an entire paragraph or even a longish sentence on the subject's "Zionism", that is, if there clearly was an agenda to discredit Zionism by guilt-by-association, then it would be a neutrality issue. But three words "far-right Zionist" (not even plain "Zionist"), that might or might not be backed by sources is not an attack on neutrality, unless you actually have an agenda of your own.
With all due respect, removing self published sources that directly relate to a BLP is completely inappropriate, since as it says in WP:BLP:
Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject.
Since the manifesto is written by the subject of the BLP it's perfectly proper to quote from it (unless the quotes used are self serving, which these uses aren't.)
Teapeat (talk) 02:52, 25 July 2011 (UTC)'[reply]
You are ignoring the rather long explanation I gave in article talk (were we should be discussing this, not here). You are wrong in your appreciation of this particular case, and if you feel that I am in violation of policy, fell free to seek dispute resolution. It will become clear to you that it is in fact your inclusion of irrelevant material that is at fault.--Cerejota (talk) 02:56, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are treating a section of policy as the whole and missing the point entirely. I am not going to wikilawyer this anymore, as there seems to be no way to convince you of your incorrect reading of policy. As I said, take it to DR if you feel strongly about it.--Cerejota (talk) 03:05, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a narrow reading of a single section of policy. Self published sources are correctly considered reliable sources under certain conditions which match how the manifesto is being used. Your removal of it is inappropriate.Teapeat (talk) 03:45, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am very upset and frustrated. Please put back all the <ref name="manifesto" /> tags that you removed. What you are doing is both insensitive and not supported by the alleged policy on reliable sources. There is an ongoing discussion about your actions on the talk page, which you seem to have ignored. --hydrox (talk) 04:15, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Its funny you un-did them, because then in talk you seem to support them. Anyways, I was not ignoring any discussion, you can tell from my edit history I always discuss all my edits and furthermore, create edit summaries. --Cerejota (talk) 08:42, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, sorry I seem to have missed the previous talk page discussion when making above comments - there was a previous discussion on the issue indeed. I support selectively, cautiously and responsibly using the manifesto as a source, but I am naturally strongly against anyone publishing personal interpretations in WP. Thus, I don't support removing the references, but peer-reviewing them, and removing any questionable ones when encountered. --hydrox (talk) 09:34, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Then we agree fully. My fear is that so far, most editors have unwittingly engage din OR when using it. Peer-review and extensive discussion of any quotation before inclusion seems a good idea. --Cerejota (talk) 09:36, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My current proposal is to include an editnotice (a warning that is shown to all editors) to the page, warning of using the primary source in a manner not permitted by the policy, and monitoring the page for primary source abuse. But I am not for removing or {{fact}}'ing well-sanctioned use of the manifesto from the article as of now. --hydrox (talk) 09:50, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I like that idea of the edit notice, however the part about sanction needs to be processed more. I have an idea, ill write it in talk.--Cerejota (talk) 09:57, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Who decided those quotes are relevant, worthy of inclusion, and encyclopedic? You did. How did you do it? By engaging in WP:OR. Can't argue otherwise. Also please learn to use the new section button in talk pages.--Cerejota (talk) 09:29, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article about Hitler, and essentially all individuals, does the same. It is a necessity to select pertinent quotes for each article.
You also selectively choose which police reports to mention, when you allow "police reports initially described him as a fundamentalist Christian" to stand. That's a selection.
Please stop trying to force your agenda through by bullying other users with charges of "disruptive editing." --Ben Ammi (talk) 09:37, 25 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ben Ammi (talk • contribs)
Nope, the quotes in Hitler are supported by secondary sources even if they are quoted from the primary. The secondary sources chose the quote, not us. Do you understand the difference? --Cerejota (talk) 10:55, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
breivik
please note that user scottperry has re-inserted the claim that breivik admired osama bin laden again [1]. i think this is his 5. or. 6. revert less than 24 hours. he tried to muster support but still doesn't have any consensus at all. he is not even discussing any more. i suggest to remove the unreliable material he has yet again included, and a proper administrative response to his breaking of the three-revert rule.-- mustihussain (talk) 09:30, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
scott reverted again. he has unfortunately broken the 3-rr policy a couple of times now in less than 24 hours (8 reverts i think).-- mustihussain (talk) 12:39, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I know the rules. If I deleted someone others comment, it was unintended and due to an edit conflict. However, it might be that the other one got an edit conflict, and that I did nothing to trigger the data loss. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 11:17, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2011 Norway attacks
Please do not remove information from articles, as you did to 2011 Norway attacks. Wikipedia is not censored, and content is not removed on the sole grounds of perceived offensiveness. Please discuss this issue on the article's talk page to reach consensus rather than continuing to remove the disputed material. If the content in question involves images, you also have the option to configure Wikipedia to hide the images that you may find offensive. Thank you. Lihaas (talk) 22:13, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
dont templte the regulars
yours seems liek a clear case of vengeance mongering which is proable by the time stamp
what is OR about SOURCED INFO particularly when consensus ont he talk page ALREADY supportsit and you claim "dont need discussion"Lihaas (talk) 22:29, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
AGF is not via REPEATED violations, which you seem to have done as noted by various editors on this page. Of whih now the vengeance mongering is adequetely clear in ryour quest to tag me with something
dont template the regulars -- not sure what you mean by regular, but with the repeated ignoring of guideliens you dont seem soLihaas (talk) 13:06, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Since you do not specify what "violations" have happened, I cannot make amends to them. Your lack of clarity is not helpful. I will ignore the rest of the things for now. --Cerejota (talk) 16:50, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I wanted to let you know that I've removed the G11 tag you added to Soul UK Tour. G11 is for articles that are irretrievably promotional; this article, while it talks about an upcoming event, doesn't appear to be non-neutrally promoting it at all - it's just giving facts. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:22, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Since we have never corresponded, there is no active edit war, nor have I been blocked for 3RR in this article (and only once a long time ago and quickly unblocked when it was clear the admin was involved), may I ask what is this sudden interest in me?--Cerejota (talk) 04:32, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not singling you out...actually, I'm looking now at another user on the same article who I will be probably warning in a few minutes if it turns out like it looks. I just happened to have been posting about the corrupted archiving and saw your reverts in a rapid order of same material:
Apart from editing the talk page for the technical reasons related to archiving, I have not edited that article and have no dispute there (with you or anyone). Just keep clean for the next 24 hours there, okay? :) ⋙–Berean–Hunter—►04:41, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Did you read the edit summaries? They are a bit self-explanatory. I think you jumped the gun a little, but we all do... :)--Cerejota (talk) 04:53, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I did read the summaries. I'm trying to prevent something bad from happening where several users are editing in a flurry and may not realize that they are close to the line. I've now warned two other users there. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—►05:09, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
