Jump to content

User talk:Spartaz/Archive11

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

NGHawes

[edit]

Hi Spartz, You deleted the article "HR-XML Consortium Inc." because of "no evidence of notability ". From what I have read, notability determines whether a topic merits its own article. An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Is the problem that HR-XML doesn't have enough coverage or that I didn't provide enough sources of the coverage. If the answer is the latter, how do I go about editing my page? Thanks, Nghawes (talk) 20:20, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Michael Bletsas

[edit]

Hi — can you explain your deletion rationale "Since sources have not been provided the delete arguments have not been refuted" in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Bletsas? Since the time of the nomination, 11 footnotes were added to the article, including many that cover him nontrivially and are reliably published, so I don't understand what you mean when you say that sources have not been provided. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:08, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • The arguments in the afd were that the sources were by him not about him. Has that changed? Because I didn't see that position effectively challenged in the debate. Spartaz Humbug! 20:10, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • You didn't see my comment early in the debate "I completely rewrote the article, based on reliable sources."? And you relied on the AfD to tell you whether the sources were added rather than making a cursory check yourself? Unfortunately much of the debate got sidetracked by one user who refused to read the sources that were added, looked only at the subject's self-written web page, and somehow jumped from that to the erroneous conclusion that the article was conflating information about two people with the same name. Anyway, I think your re-close as no-consensus is much more appropriate, so I'm considering this resolved. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:19, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mohsen Emadi

[edit]

Hi- can you explain me the reasons you have deleted this page,Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mohsen_Emadi_(2nd_nomination), while two users where opposing deletion and also there were 35 reliable reference for this case? what's your exact reason for promoting someone non-notable while he has such a reputations in media?--Transcelan (talk) 22:26, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

K. A. Malle Pharmaceuticals

[edit]

Hi Spartaz,

Just a quick heads-up. You might hear from the authors of K. A. Malle Pharmaceuticals which you recently deleted after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/K. A. Malle Pharmaceuticals Limited. Even though I always felt I was providing guidance on how the article might be kept, they have accused me of deleting it. I have explained myself in a note on their talk page suggesting they ask you first or take it to DRV. Let me know if you think that was the wrong thing to do and I'll gladly remove my note. Thanks. Astronaut (talk) 14:17, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Smelly Socks

[edit]

I had User:MuZemike close the AfD (and it is now). - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:16, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rachael Faye Hill DrV

[edit]

Hi Spartaz,

Sorry I didn't contact you in the first instance after you closed the Rachael Faye Hill AfD however I mis-read your user page and thought that you were already away on holiday.

I think that the article should be reinstated for the numerous reasons that are outlined in the DrV, including arguments for both deleting and keeping the article. Due to the fact that there are equal arguments on both sides I believe that the article should be reinstated.

Where do you stand on the matter?

Cheers,

CrazyMiner (talk) 02:26, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Sorry can you try that again? It didn't make sense. CrazyMiner (talk) 16:12, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Move Closer to Your World

[edit]

MCTYW wasn't included in the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The X-2 Package AfD. If you could readd those and undelete the page, that would be cool. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:39, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

reply

[edit]

You commented on Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2010_July_15#Al_Fand_training_camp, where you wrote: "I looked at this and was going to close as delete but then got distracted. This clearly has no sources so we should not keep it and the closing rational has no basis in policy.

I interpreted User:Anthony Appleyard's "no consensus" closure as his way of stating that the {{afd}} was hopelessly compromised by the nominator's lapses from policy.

Are you aware of any other article where a disgruntled nominator insisted on keeping an article before {{afd}} for 52 days in a row with serial nominations? Isn't that highly disruptive? It wouldn't surprise me if our nominator has just set a record. Geo Swan (talk) 15:55, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm sure you would be the first to accept that your view of events is compromised by your own opinions as the article creator but there is no excuse for a separate page on a subject that has inadequate sources. Spartaz Humbug! 17:12, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You don't agree that a single contributor keeping an article before {{afd}} for 52 days in a row is unprecedented and indefensible?
  • If you have been following this {{afd}} you are well aware I favor merging this article to a broader article on the general phenomenon of suspecting individuals of ties to terrorism based on allegations they received military training in Afghanistan. Geo Swan (talk) 16:31, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of NX Ideas article

[edit]

I would like to help get the NX Ideas page in shape so that it meets all of the notability requirements and avoids the advertising issues for which it was deleted. To be clear (as it says on my user page) I am employed by Siemens so I am not going to recreate the page directly. I see two possible paths to get a better page created:

  • create one in my userspace and then get someone (who?) to look at it and create the page from it
  • contact the users who felt the page was valuable when it was being considered for deletion and see if they are interested in starting a new page (if this is preferred can you provide me with their user pages so I can contact them as I can't seem to get to the discussion page for deletion anymore).

Can you advise on which approach is preferred or if there is another that I didn't consider? Thanks in advance. Aakelley (talk) 18:48, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spartaz archived my comments on this deletion without responding to them. I have no affiliation with Siemens/NX. I cleaned the article up & my clean up was not really commented on in the AfD or by Spartaz. Given that (i) the AfD was raised by a single-purpose account, (ii) I addressed the issues raided in AfD, and (iii) nobody has bothered to comment on why this cleanup wasn't sufficient enough, I feel the article should be restored. If there are any apparent issues, the article can be tagged (or, in an extreme case, sent back to AfD for additional comments). I hadn't cared enough about the topic to bring this to deletion review or to recreate an article from scratch immediately, but thought that Aakelley would appreciate that those options do have some traction. --Karnesky (talk) 19:19, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Will particiapte in deletion review as it develops and contribute what I can there.Aakelley (talk) 20:49, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for I-DEAS

[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of I-DEAS. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Karnesky (talk) 19:41, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Halevy - Salting?

[edit]

I see you closed the 2nd AFD on this and specified salting, however it looks like you protected the AFD page instead. Can you double check? --82.7.40.7 (talk) 07:27, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you salt an entry that was up for 18 months and went through only one rewrite, with new references -- Halevy's congressional inclusion? Very excessive, considering if Kevin Powell wins, Halevy will be 'wiki-worthy.' ??? 72.248.3.102 (talk) 13:11, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Three Brads?

[edit]

LOL. ++Lar: t/c 11:23, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot a step

[edit]

I think you forgot to note the closing the AfD at the main article of The Silver Ship and the Sea ;) —CodeHydro 14:56, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RE admins noticeboard

[edit]

It was kind of rude and unnecessary to collapse and archive someone else' thread. I was satisfied with the response and didn't intend to argue it, but the act of forcibly "shutting down" someone's post bothered me. It would have been more helpful to contribute your opinion. SwarmTalk 22:28, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm not referring to a thread at ANI, I'm referring to the thread I started at AN, which is considerably less busy, and it was a relatively short thread that wouldn't have interfered with readability anyway. Archiving threads is usually not normal on AN unless a discussion has generated some kind of consensus and should be preserved. The vast majority of discussions there are never archived. Collapse-archiving is not normal at all on the board unless the discussion is moved elsewhere. SwarmTalk 06:25, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Spartaz, you've been helpful. SwarmTalk 18:32, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Canvass

[edit]

I had simply contacted one person, not anything I would call "canvassing." I will leave my comment on that one user's talk page deleted, but I will restore my notification at the Rescue squadron project, as I feel it's 100% reasonable to notify a Wikiproject which deals with this sort of thing. Helvetica (talk) 15:09, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'm not sure exactly what the neutrality guidelines are for comments on a project page. Perhaps you can point me in the right direction with a link to said policy or guideline? I re-worded my comment and can re-word it again if there's still some reason for serious concern... Helvetica (talk) 15:21, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've re-written my note a third time now. Hopefully everyone will now be satisfied with its neutrality. -Helvetica (talk) 15:35, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

consideration request for P4 medicine

[edit]

Dear Spartz Could you please see this link and let me know of things thats i dont know? I think my sources were mostly pubmed articles which are peer reviewed as you must know. Regards Quantumash (talk) 10:43, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

27th Transportation Center (United States)

[edit]

Per WP:Delete: "Pages are to be deleted by an administrator only if there is consensus to do so." In this AfD there was no consensus for deletion, therefore the page should be kept. I request that 27th Transportation Center (United States) be restored. Inniverse (talk) 13:53, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Our inclusion threshold is having multiple independent sourcing. I presume you read the essay linked on my edit page that explains how deletion works. Consensus means that whoever has the best policy based argument wins - which means that delete arguments about lack of sourcing are policy based while arguments to keep by assertion without producing solid sources are just assertions and get less weight. I was also minded to reflect that two similar articles had had consensuses to delete recently and, while there are no precedents, the fact that a wider meta consensus on these articles is emerging is relevant to the local discussion. Is there a overarching article that this could have been merged/redirected to? I'm not averse to aggregating non-notable articles into a larger notable one but no-one mentioned that and it wasn't an option in the close. If you want the article back I'm willing to review any sources you provide and revisit the close sympathetically but I'm always going to insist on the sources being impeccable. Spartaz Humbug! 14:32, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is not the definition of 'Consensus'. The actual definition is the general agreement among the members of a given group or community; a process of decision-making that maintains the continued consent of group members in the course of action. There was no general agreement, and thus there was no consensus. Inniverse (talk) 14:45, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has its own definition which is based on rough consensus - see WP:CONSENSUS. We measure this by matching arguments against policy and guidelines. There is a project-wide consensus that notability comes from having multiple independent sources. Therefore arguments that cite specific sourcing whether negative or positive are policy based while arguments around sources must exist without citing said sources or simple assertions are given much less weight as they do not address the onus that you need to back something up when challenged. If you had produced a couple of really good independent sources then you would have won the discussion even if faced by a clear majority of users voting delete - because a local consensus cannot top a project consensus so the argument has to be looked at against project norms to ensure fairness and consistency. We do not count votes, we look at the arguments. There is a project consensus developing that individual units are not notable, the general requirement is to have sources and there was a clear view put forward that the sources did not cut the mustard. Then there were lots of non-policy based keep votes or simple assertion that did not cut any weight because they were not evidenced by specific sources to demonstrate the arguments put forward were correct. Finally, I realise that the decision isn't the one you want, and that you disagree but please try to assume that I am neither stupid, nor malicious and that I am literate enough to read and understand policy for myself. That would help the discussion immensely. As stated in my essay on rescuing content all you need to do is demonstrate two decent independent sources and my inclination in such cases is either to void a close or relist for discussion of the sources. If this centre does meet our inclusion criteria then it will be trivial to produce said sources and doing this would be a much better use if your time then lecturing me about what our polices do or don't say... Spartaz Humbug! 15:11, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

redirecting failure monopoly vs. WP:R#PLA

[edit]

Your judgment on this AfD was to redirect to Natural monopoly despite several editors raising issues about WP:R#PLA, since it might be inappropriate to discuss failure monopolies in that article. What is your take on WP:R#PLA and how do you think this should be resolved? Eg, what should happen if there is resistance to mentioning "failure monopoly" on natural monopoly, etc? thanks, ErikHaugen (talk) 17:15, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • If the editorial consensus is to reject the merge then that's fine since an AFD closed as merge is a recommendation and is not binding - do take care the local consensus is strong enough to justify ignoring the discussion consensus. If that happens then nudge me and I'll review the close to see whether the redirect should stand or a deletion should take place. Spartaz Humbug! 17:20, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfD: Andrew Stone (Pineapple Dance Studios)

[edit]

Hi Spartaz, I'm contacting you about the above deletion discussion. You closed the discussion at 04:29, 22 August 2010 (UTC) stating that there is consensus to merge the content into the article Pineapple Dance Studios. This action causes me concern for a number of reasons, none of which are related to my view on keeping or deleting the article, but rather whether you have acted properly in the action you took.[reply]

The discussion resulted in the following votes:

Keep 4
Weak keep 1
Delete 4
Weak delete 1
Merge to Pineapple Dance Studios (TV series) 2
Merge to Pineapple Dance Studios 1

The discussion includes entirely plausible arguments on both sides of the debate.

Having read WP:DEL, WP:ROUGH CONSENSUS, and studied numerous other deletion discussions with similar outcomes, I am convinced that you have acted out of process. I understand this may be due to an oversight and trust you will rectify it without delay. Failing that, I will present this case for deletion review.

Cheers IainUK talk 22:29, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • If you read the responses two sections up, I explain that we don't count votes but look at arguments against policy. The clear consensus was that there aren't enough sources for a standalone article. I had two options from that, one was to delete and the other to merge but the more recent arguments were for merge. Since its obvious you are off to DRV whatever I say, feel free since you are clearly not going to listen to any discussion of policy, explanation of the reasoning or analysis of the votes. Spartaz Humbug! 02:36, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Spartaz, thanks for getting back to me. As indicated, I have already familiarised myself with WP:ROUGH CONSENSUS, and so understand how to interpret WP:DEL. Firstly, it is my understanding that although rough consensus is not a system of voting, it would be completely wrong to say voting does not count or is irrelevant. It also does not mean that the closer of the debate gets to decide on the article, and then choose the responses which fit in best with his own interpretation of the article policy. When you have 5 people presenting clear and plausible cases for keeping the article, 5 presenting plausible cases for deleting it, and 3 wanting it merged to one article or another, I struggle to understand how you can say the clear consensus was that there aren't enough sources for a standalone article.
I hope you can understand my confusion here and realise that the bad faith assumption you have made in your last sentence is incorrect. I would have gone straight to WP:DRV if that is what I wanted to do - but instead I chose to come here to discuss it first, and I hope you can recognise that. Cheers IainUK talk 07:46, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Effectively you say above you will take me to DRV if I don't change the close. That's not a discussion, its a threat. I don't respond well to threats so just do what you will but don't expect me to spend my time talking this through with you if you are already closed to anything but the view that this is going to DRV if I don't conceed. Spartaz Humbug! 08:03, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for getting back to me Spartaz. I can see where you are coming from and I am sorry to have given you that impression - I was actually assuming good faith in saying that I understand it could have been an oversight, and indeed that is what I expected it to be. If you can accept that I am a genuine wikipedian with a legitimate concern, and explain to me how your action was justified, or change it, then I will not go to WP:DRV. My preference is discussion with you, and that is why I came here first and not straight to DRV. Cheers IainUK talk 08:12, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll come back to this later today. Spartaz Humbug! 04:26, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I spent the evening at the hospital with my youngest having some checks done (nothing wrong thank goodness) but I'll hopefully respond properly tomorrow. Spartaz Humbug! 19:54, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, glad to learn all is well. I genuinely believe you have acted entirely in good faith, it's just that I do feel in this case - due to the range of opinions and arguments put to the discussion - it ought to have been extended in order to establish better consensus. Perhaps you could agree to this? Cheers IainUK talk 13:40, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]


UTTER RUBBISH - the overwhelming consensus was not that there were insufficient sources to justify a standalone topic. On the contrary in fact. This is a disgraceful executive decision, which flies in the face of the evidence and the arguments put forward. If you are going to justify something by reference to 'consensus' at least get that consensus correct! Outrageous. I'd usually say that there is a misunderstanding, but in this case the truth is so far removed from what you say that this cannot be an appropriate description. 78.150.23.206 (talk) 14:33, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

.That doesn't matter. My point is valid. There's no way any reasonable person can interpret the discussions as generally coming down on the side of 'merging' let alone it being a consensus. 78.150.23.206 (talk) 14:57, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

78.150.23.206 that is not helpful. Whilst I appreciate you would like to see the article stay on Wikipedia - and I totally feel the same way - it is very important to stick to the policies. May I ask that you look over WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL and WP:DP. Spartaz has dedicated his time to the project and so we need to show each other respect. Even if you think they have acted totally out of process, there are proper ways we can resolve things. Thank you - and if there is anything I can help you with, leave a message on my talkpage and I will be glad to oblige! Cheers IainUK talk 16:11, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

-- It's not my fault if you don't understand what I have said. I happen to think that my comments were entirely helpful because I clearly pointed out that there was no evidential basis for the decision that had been made. It's absolutely fine if the article should be removed under the procedure; the point is that reason given (namely that the consensus was to merge) is factually incorrect. The discussion did not result in this consensus at all; in fact, the complete opposite. Cheers 78.150.23.206 (talk) 14:35, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spartaz - can I ask that we meet each other in the middle and re-open the discussion for another week to see if further weight can be added to one side of the debate? Cheers IainUK talk 16:11, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With apologies for the delay in responding more fully, yesterday and today have been very difficult days in RL and a detailed re-evaluation of a discussion needs me to have enough time to do it justice. The basic tenor is that 5 editors who reviewed the article did not feel the sources were notable and that the subject did not meet GNG. I discarded one Ip delete as "me too" and not policy based. Beyond this there were a further 3 votes that this did not meet criteria for a standalone article and one weak keep/merge from Ron. On the other hand, there were 4 definite keeps based on the sourcing offered.

Interestingly for an AFD the sourcing was discussed and was actively reviewed and many of the delete arguments were really well based on proper searching for sourcing. The sources adduced were clearly marginal based on the discussion. Looking at them, which I didn't do at the time as admins are encouraged to read the discussion rather then decide on sources themselves, there is one probably OK source, a BBC interview which doesn't count cos its a primary not secondary source and an article about BB and the subject's entry to the house. This amounts to 1.5 decent sources which is marginally above or below the bar depending on the attitude of the commentator to notability and sourcing. This is borne out by subsequent votes where users challenged about the sources maintained their stance. After the sources came out there was a strong move towards merging and this was also supported by 3 of of the early delete votes. Towards the end even Ron, who produced the sources into the afd commented in their weak keep that notability was marginal and that a merge was also OK by him. Also, on the keep side there were several IP votes that generally carry less weight in deletion discussions then registered users because of the danger of sockpuppetry and the like.

At the end of the day we had a marginally notable subject where there was not a clear consensus that the sourcing was adequate and also 4 later votes supporting merge and three early deletions also offering a merge if the article wasn't deleted. I did not feel it appropriate to discard early delete votes before the sourcing was discussed as they were well founded in policy and the users concerned indicated they had searched for sources and had reviewed what was there. Clearly more of the marginal sourcing issue.

Closing as merge was fairly textbook and took account of strength of argument, the ebb and flow of the discussion and the fact that a merge is a less damaging solution then deleting. If the sourcing had been clearer then I would have kept this, but, at the end of the day, even after the sources were raised the discussion doesn't show a clear consensus that they were enough and this was reflected by the fact that many subsequent voters felt that a merge instead of a standalone article was a reasonable outcome.

If there is improvement to the sourcing then the merge becomes less tenable and a standalone article becomes viable without the need to have a further discussion. Please feel free to ping me as and when you find new sources and I'll happily revisit this again for you. Spartaz Humbug! 16:42, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Freakshownerd

[edit]

Thanks for dealing with this. I've just seen his latest posts, and I'd have reblocked myself if you hadn't. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 08:23, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another out of process deletion by you

[edit]

Please restore Debrahlee Lorenzana and familiarize yourself with the policies on article recreation. As it was wholly new with new cites that were not in the old article and that did not exist when the old article was deleted it cannot be speedy deleted. Freakshownerd (talk) 12:35, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • This was deleted under BLP1E so sourcing is completly irrelevant and admins are required by BLP to remove questionable BLP content immediately. There is a consensus that we do not have this article and that was upheald by DRV. You are welcome to have the deleted article userfied and to bring that to DRV for another look but it was well within my responsibilities as an admin to remove material from mainspace that was there is contravention of a consensus that this was a BLP1E vio. Thank you. I apologise for not properly explaining myself at the time of deletion but I did not want to prompt to you even more extreme behaviour. Spartaz Humbug! 13:36, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If there are new sources months after an event then obviously that counters the BLP1E argument. You violated the policy on article recreation. Please cease your disruption, restore the article, and take it to AfD if you still think it is a BLP-1E despite continuing to receive very substantial coverage in reliable independent media. Freakshownerd (talk) 13:40, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Months? This was last endorsed in July - only a month ago. I'm not debating this with you. I acted entirely appropriately to protect the project from having an article that had clearly, on multiple occasions, been deleted or deletion endorsed by consensus that it was in breach of BLP1E. Admins are required to act if they become aware of a BLP issue and I did I what I did because otherwise I would have been derelict in my duty. The page was supposed to have been salted and was only open because Protonk userfied a copy and accidentally lost the protection in so doing. I have rectified this and you are welcome to bring a draft to DRV for another discussion but, personally, I feel you would have more chance if you let the dust settle from the last DRV. Spartaz Humbug! 13:46, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the policy. Articles can be recreated when they are substantially different and when new sources are added. You do not have a valid reason for speedy deletion. Stop wasting my time. If you want to delete the new article with completely new sources you have to take it to AfD. If you don't like the policy on the speedy deletion of recreated articles, feel free to change it. Freakshownerd (talk) 13:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AGAIN, the article meets the valid recreation criteria:

==Valid reasons for recreating a deleted page==
Acceptable reasons for recreating a previously deleted page are:
  • Notability status has changed: ... When an article was first created, the subject was not notable, but coverage has since expanded, thereby establishing notability.

You will also find the requirements for the speedy deletion of recreated articles at Wikipedia:Recreation of previously deleted pages, none of which are met. You are now abusing your admin tools. Just because Rd232 was able to get away with it doesn not make it appropriate. Freakshownerd (talk) 14:21, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Go away and report me then, but please don't post about this on my talk again. I have already explained to you that BLP1E and multiple consensuses at AFD and two DRVs trump any effort to recreate this without first obtaining a new consensus. And don't think this counts as making me involved from dealing with you in an admin capacity in the future because it doesn't. Spartaz Humbug! 15:21, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Close as keep?

[edit]

Hey, Spartaz. Closing those AfDs as keep is incorrect. They are closed due to a procedural issue, but surely not as keep. Marking them as such is incorrect. Can you change it? Basket of Puppies 05:08, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • nope, Keep is fine, its clearly procedural from the comment and you can list an RFC or single discussion at any time. If it bothers you, you can go through and change to procedural keep but I won't be spending my time doing this. Spartaz Humbug! 05:40, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfD - Visa requirements for Russian citizens

[edit]

I'd seen that a large batch of AfDs regarding various Visa topics had been closed as keep pending discussion at ANI; however, the AfD for the Visa requirements for Russian citizens article remains open; I'm not sure if this is being handled in a separate manner, or if it might just have gotten lost in the jumble (the whole situation is quite jumbled from where I sit). Just thought I would drop a line to let you know. Aeternitas827 (talk) 07:41, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Difficult to express in any other way and definitely not an attack

[edit]

It is not a "not a personal attack". I prefaced it with "I apologize for the use of this term". I was very reluctant to write "autistic-like" and have no intention of making a personal or negative comment about any editors. All editors have the right to their opinions to be held in respect even if you disagree with them--that is central to fair and effective debate. The comment if you read careful expands and clarifies why "autistic-like" is used -- the tendency of deleters to focus upon the physical aspects of Steven Slater and be indifferent to the human ones. It does not say they are "autistic"--the word "like" is there for a purpose.

Thus I am not using this as an "attack" upon anyone but using language to observe something important about the nature of their comments--the nature of how they focus upon notability. It is an observation about editors focusing upon physical aspects and ignore human ones of Steven Slater's notability. This focusing may or may not be appropriate and people seeking to emphasis the physical aspects may be correct. This existence of this way of focusing however should be noted. This is because I think it is the core issue at the heart of this deletion dispute. How else can one easily express this without noting the human condition uniquely associated with such a pattern of focusing and not focusing upon things?--LittleHow (talk) 08:15, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I modified it since though it is not intended as an attack I would not wish it to be even misread as one.--LittleHow (talk) 08:20, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfD closure

[edit]

Your 2 Afd closure is rather odd.

  1. If there was a consenus, then is was rather for delete, not keep.
  2. You close this AfD with the result "redirect The Tree (2010 film)" and then delete it.

Can you explain this? Armbrust Talk Contribs 13:00, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • The second one was a script malfunction as the plan was to delete and then redirect. The first was because two decent sources were produced towards the end of the discussion showing the subject passed GNG/N/BIO. The strength of argument was therefore to keep as we close by measuring arguments against policy not headcount, so deletion arguments based on no sourcing are invalid if someone them produces good enough sources. Spartaz Humbug! 14:34, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'Bickering'

[edit]

I'd really like some advice as to how I could have handled Ywahoo Falls better. I was, I admit, getting frustrated with an editor who was accusing me of not understanding policy yet, for instance, refusing to answer my question as to whether they'd actually read the source they'd used. I thought my language was moderate given the situation, but... Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 08:42, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Flux2D/3D

[edit]

Hi, I request you revisit your deletion of this page. There was no consensus IMO. Also, I established several reasons for notability IMO. Rather than elaborating (repeating what I already wrote on the AfD page) here, I will wait for any questions you may have. Thanks for your attention to this. — Respectfully, HowardBGolden (talk) 16:31, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I hope that I am assuming correctly that you have read the essay linked in my edit notice and followed the links to our policies on notability and sourcing. That will make understanding our confusing not user-friendly inclusion standards a bit easier. Keep votes that assert notability and sourcing without adducing any actual sources are not policy based and carry very little weight against delete votes that cite policy and delete voters who have considered the sourcing. What sourcing was brough forward was considered to be tangential and not significant so the only strong policy based argument in the discussion was the delete one. If you want me to review this you can provide additional sources for evaluation at any time and, as soon as you (or should that be if) find a couple of decent ones, I can look at this again. Spartaz Humbug! 18:07, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Birkensnake

[edit]

Spartaz, just for the record: I am an experienced editor and I did propose that at least some of the sources provided suggested notability. Can you please userfy the article to me? Thank you. Drmies (talk) 21:38, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brady Hall

[edit]

I have been involved the last few days on filming my scenes for a one-hour Adult Swim special... Tim and Eric Awesome Show, Great Job, Crimbus Special (it will air in about 10 weeks). Otherwise I would have been able to improve the article to better show the director meeting WP:CREATIVE. I had thought it might have at least gotten a relist, and that I had time... but it was deleted. Could you please userfy it to User:MichaelQSchmidt/sandbox/Brady Hall so I can work on it in anticipation of moving it to Incubation for review? Thanks, Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:53, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

[edit]
The Special Barnstar
For being willing to act as a mentor, despite the difficulty it would entail. While it is unfortunate that the mentorship was not allowed to progress, and the user in question reverted to actions that caused the blocks in the first place, your willingness to extend the offer of help and put yourself in an uncomfortable position to try and better the English Wikipedia project is a testament to your character and a asset to the project. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 14:04, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, wow! Its unusual to get one of these for doing something unpopular, Thanks Avi. Spartaz Humbug! 16:25, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • All the more reason that it should be recognized. If more people were willing to do the unpopular for the benefit of the project and do their best to avoid unnecessary herd mentality and especially gloating, we would have a better encyclopedia. Thank you very much for your kind words on my talk page, too 8-) -- Avi (talk) 16:57, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Recent Deletion Review closure

[edit]

You might want to see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Murdox/GNAA for context. Uncle G (talk) 18:11, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Snegoff

[edit]

Here's the sources for this page. [2] [3] Bluerules (talk) 19:36, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

7 Days?

[edit]

Why was Micro Award closed out before 7 days had elapsed in the deletion process? HeartSWild (talk) 10:04, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evan Vaughan Anwyl

[edit]

Could you please do something about Frankcom's edit today? It doesn't belong there as the AfD is closed. And if I deal with it, considering his accusations against me there and on his talk page, I don't think he'll be happy. (I'll add I don't think his suggestion is a very good one either, as neither of these editors seem to have a very good grasp on our policies and guidelines in this area. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 19:25, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I have made the merge. The comment I had made about the sensability of the merge being performed by someone in favour of the retention or merger of the article was not a personal attack and should not have been seen as such.James Frankcom (talk) 09:24, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then you need to think a bit harder about you phrase stuff and personalise stuff less Spartaz Humbug! 10:29, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Libb Thims

[edit]

I saw the ANI discussion and you might want to modify your block message to him, lest it appear that an outright community ban can be lifted with {{unblock}}.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:39, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/C. T. Mathew

[edit]

Dear Spartaz, hi. I hope it is Ok to ask if I can have a copy of the latest verison of C.T. Mathew so that I can restore it, if and when I have sufficient references? Also I hope it is not too rude and you don't mind your judegments being questioned but I am not sure about the fairness/accuracy of your summary in your deletion decision. Not many participated in the debate but I think I swayed 2 out of 4 towards keeping - the nominator ("as the nominator I am not opposed to the article being kept with the source found by Msrasnw. However, I think it's too borderline a case to withdraw my nomination.") and swayed one of the deleters "Changed to weak keep in the light of the source unearthed by Msrasnw." Other than those there were only two deleters and two keepers.

A summary of the discussion might be:

Keep

  • DGG: Keep
  • Msrasnw: Keep

Delete

  • Xxanthippe: Delete
  • Nsk92: Delete

Changed views

  • J04n: Nominator not opposed to the article being kept with the source found .. but too borderline a case to withdraw my nomination.
  • Salih: Delete-> Weak Keep

One might also note the article's main authors did not participate in the debate.

The lack of sufficient non-trivial citations (I think we only have one substantial one and several other passing mentions) is clearly a possible interpretation and justification for deletion but I had hoped our sourcing would be enough as the material seemed verified and uncontentious. Would it be enough for a very short stub - with just a summary of that which is in the cited sources and without the the peacock and family things and if so can I try that and then run it by you on the userified page? (Msrasnw (talk) 08:50, 9 September 2010 (UTC)) PS: I have made a little space here to help you with userification in case you feel able to restore it to and it helps: User:Msrasnw/C.T.Mathew.[reply]

  • Its marginal but notability requires two decent sources not one and few rubbish ones. There has to be a standard and sometimes article just fall short. Obviously this would be subject to sympathetic review if another source were found. In the meantime, I'm happy to userfy for you. Just drop me a line if the sources are improved. Spartaz Humbug! 18:00, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks! (Msrasnw (talk) 18:04, 9 September 2010 (UTC))[reply]

A sock?

[edit]

[4]. Have to admit, I feel like a damn fool for taking this proposal seriously. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:09, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

failure monopoly

[edit]

We had a conversation about this AfD closure awhile back. Nobody at Natural monopoly's talk thought it should redirect to there, and someone suggested redirecting to Human Action instead, since it was described in that work. However, we aren't getting any traction at Talk:Human_Action either, which I don't think is surprising considering how much treatment "failure monopoly" got in the work. SmokeyJoe's comment there is particularly interesting wrt consensus, since he was one of the main "don't delete" !votes at the AfD. Would you please consider reviewing this AfD? I think the redirect is confusing as it stands now. thank you, ErikHaugen (talk) 17:33, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ANI Appeal

[edit]

Please review the two sources I have added to my statement which cite WMC's article in exactly the same manner that I did, as an example of alarmism from global cooling. One is peer reviewed, one is a book. Thanks, GregJackP Boomer! 12:39, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boris Malagurski

[edit]

Hi, you closed the discussion (Sept. last year!) regarding this proposal of deleting that page as delete. However, the page - Boris Malagurski - has not been deleted yet, could you or any other moderator please do so? I came across the article today and immediately got suspicious. Then I was trying to get some background and ended up at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boris Malagurski. It is clearly self-promotional spam and should be deleted. There is reasonable doubt that the page itself has been mostly written by the very person concerned. Thank you in advance. 84.50.15.143 (talk) 18:01, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • The article was restored after new sources became available and then kept after a further discussion. There is a degree of self promotion but the consensus was that the subject just crept over the inclusion bar. Spartaz Humbug! 18:22, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NOTNEWS

[edit]

I saw that you deleted three articles about terrorist attacks on Israel and Jordan with the reason NOTNEWS. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/August 2010 rocket attack on Eilat/Aqaba Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/June 2010 West Bank shooting Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/August 2010 West Bank shooting I would like your blessing in cleaning out the related cats starting with all articles in Category:Terrorist incidents in 2010. If you disagree, then please state why the three you deleted are different from anything in there. --Shuki (talk) 18:29, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Essentially its down to you whether you see sufficiently similar characteristics between the articles in that catagory for these AFDs to be a precedent. I certainly do not see the lists as being bound by these and whether the other articles should be deleted no doubt will depend on whether there is an overarching article that already covers the subject in part or whole. I should also draw your attention to WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Spartaz Humbug! 18:36, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that your deletion close of these three articles was incorrect, perhaps because this is a region that you do not follow closely. You are doubtless aware that there are ongoing peace talks between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. The incident that you deleted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/August 2010 West Bank shooting is having a material impact on these talks, in particular, because pressure from settlers in the West Bank has caused the government of Israel to lift the ban on construction in West Bank settlements [5], [6], but also it is widely understood that Hamas launched the attacks in a deliberate effort to derail the peace talks [7], [8]. there are dozens more article like these. Citing an incident with this kind of impact as a news story of merely temporary interest is incorrect.
The Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/June 2010 West Bank shooting also continues to be in the news. [9], and, significantly, to be cited [10] as an obstacle (or s a reason for obstructing)[11] the peace process. As above, I can cite many recent article similar to these.
My objection to your deletion of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/August 2010 rocket attack on Eilat/Aqaba is that the title under which the article was deleted was, if I recall correctly, a move from a previous title that, like the article, treated the August rocket attacks as the most recent in a series of rocket attacks that jointly target (and cause destruction in) Aquaba, Jordan, and Eilat, Israel. This is not a trivail topic and, unfortunately, not a transient topic as there have been a seris of such attacks in recent years.
I would also like to second User:Shuki's argument. Single terror attacks, even failed ones, in Europe and the United States are routinely deemed worthy of Wikipedia articles. You bring WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS to bear. I would argue, rather, that many articles on single incidents over many years have created a defacto Wikipedia standard whereby single incidents of terrorism, even failed terror attacks and incidents, merit articles. 2004 financial buildings plot, Wood Green ricin plot, Columbus Shopping Mall Bombing Plot, Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar SUV attack, 2005 Los Angeles bomb plot, Qantas Flight 1737. there are many more such Wikipedia articles on individual incidents in which no one was killed, or which were plots that never were carried out. Wikipedia standards ought to be consistent. Rather than selectively delete terror incidents in Israel, I argue that we ought to accept articles about incidents of terrorism worldwide. How, after all, can we possibly argue that the 2010 Times Square car bombing attempt is WP notable, while the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/August 2010 rocket attack on Eilat/Aqaba Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/June 2010 West Bank shooting, and the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/August 2010 West Bank shooting are not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by AMuseo (talk • contribs)
Am I right that you are essentially arguing for an exemption from NOTNEWS for I/P articles based on practise and overarching importance? I'm afraid that I must disagree with that because the project as a whole needs to work to different standards. NOTNEWS is a policy which means that it trumps N which is a guideline. The time to decide if a newslike subject has enduring notability outside the immediate impact and headlines is several months down the road. August is an even worse time to make that kind of judgement for recent events because its the silly season and the papers have nothing to print. My personal view (but not one I was expressing in the close) is that there should be overarching articles that include details of these events in the context of the overall dispute - i.e. properly summarising them in the context of everything that is going on in the I/P field. Otherwise its just another news article about another routine and regrettable atrocity in a region already full to overflowing with bad events. Spartaz Humbug! 03:52, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, the issue is that community WP:CONS trumps NOTNEWS. It's also about dozens, if not hundreds of articles existing, but a unique decision made here to ignore that. I'm going to ask you again; If I put up other similar 'crap' articles up for AfD like AMuseo listed above, will you support and delete at the end of the discussion week? --Shuki (talk) 07:33, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are completely wrong there. A local consensus does not trump site wide norms and standards and NOTNEWS has been a long standing policy that has wide support. The keep arguments were based on two main elements -that these articles were notable and that anyway IP articles are more important. The first is irrelevant because its too soon to see evidence of enduring notability so the policy trumps the guideline and the second is simply arguing that a local consensus should trump a site wide consensus, which doesn't happen. Spartaz Humbug! 08:26, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am certainly not "arguing for an exemption from NOTNEWS for I/P articles." User:Shuki and I are making two clear and simple arguments. One is that there is a WP:CONS that individual terrorism incidents are significant. This consensus is demonstrated by the fact that Wikipedia has hundreds of such articles, many about incidents as minor as the Columbus Shopping Mall Bombing Plot. That article has been on Wikipedia since 2007. The fact that hundreds of stable Wikipedia articles exist on minor plots, incidents of intended terrorism that never happened, makes it clear not that anyone is arguing that Israel/Palestine articles should be treated differently, but that I/P articles are in fact being treated differently than other articles. To wit: they are deleted whereas comparable articles about incidents of terrorism elsewhere in the world are not. Note, for example, that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/August 2010 West Bank shooting was nominated for deletion before I had even finished writing it. The 2010 Ottawa terrorism plot was not treated this way. Nor was the 2010 Newry car bombing. To keep them but delete Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/August 2010 West Bank shooting you have to argue that I/P articles be treated differently than articles about the British Isles. My second argument is that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/June 2010 West Bank shooting and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/August 2010 West Bank shooting should not be deleted under NotNews because they are about incidents that are having a real impact on the peace process and on the construction freeze in settlements in the West Bank. And that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/August 2010 rocket attack on Eilat/Aqaba , despite the poor title, it is in fact not about a single incident but about a series of rocket attacks over several years.AMuseo (talk) 11:27, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As Spartaz seems unwilling, I have taken the matter to DRV, as noted below. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:33, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for August 2010 rocket attack on Eilat/Aqaba

[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of August 2010 rocket attack on Eilat/Aqaba. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:21, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Eidolon_(band)

[edit]

I saw that AfD nomination for Eidolon was closed with result keep. Since there were three votes for delete and three for keep, I don't see why would the result be keep. Even though I do understand that AfD nomination is a discussion, not voting, but I still think that there was no consensus. The sources found were questioned because, as some of the people claimed, there was not enough text linked to the band (the band was mostly mentioned in Megadeth articles, meaning that those sources can't confirm band's notability). I suggested to last person who voted keep to add some references in order to see if everything in the article can be covered. The article is still unreferenced and I don't think that anyone plans to add sources. With all due respect, I don't think that the consensus was achieved. — NikFreak (leave message) 12:35, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • According to your comment [12] in the AFD you accept that the sources provided are reliable. This means there are multiple reliable sources - which is the inclusion standard per WP:N. Given this, I couldn't have closed this any other way. The main thrust of the delete arguments is that this should be merged with Megadeth and/or that the sources aren;t enough to write a detailed article or cover the material that is already there. None of this needs deletion to fix. OR can be removed as an editorial judgement. The coverage in the article can be cut down to what is in the sources and/or the material redirected/merged without the need for admin tools. AFD is strictly speaking about deletion and I can't delete something that even the delete side accept has multiple reliable sources. Spartaz Humbug! 12:45, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, I apologize. I will see if the article can be merged with Megadeth. Regards. — NikFreak (leave message) 15:38, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Admin

[edit]

Yeah, I'm thinking about it. I'm currently hosed at work and that will certainly keep me from doing so for a while, but I am starting to see a point to me being an admin (I've wanted to tools a few times in the last month). Plus, oddly, work might push me to spend more time here as part of my job (I'd disclose that if I ran, there isn't a COI issue) and in that case being an admin would be very handy indeed. But for now I'm going to duck and get back to work (I'm there right now avoiding the work in front of me...). Thanks again, your encouragement makes my day a bit brighter :-). Hobit (talk) 19:54, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Toplist

[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Toplist. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Rich Farmbrough, 15:05, 13 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]

It's old, it's not a big deal, I just thought it needed another look. If you want to restore the items and delete the DRV, that's fine with me. I'll likely not be following the DRV. Rich Farmbrough, 15:12, 13 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Its a big deal to me because it suggests you don't trust me to do the right thing. I have a standard policy of undeleting anything deleted for notability if someone can demonstrate the sourcing. But if you want to raise a DRV without evidence and waste 7 days of everyone's time feel free. Spartaz Humbug! 15:23, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Visa policy of Andorra

[edit]

He Spartaz, as you closed most of the AfD discussions last months related to the ANI discussions at the time, could you also close Visa policy of Andorra, which is still open? Rgds! L.tak (talk) 20:51, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Irving Literary Society

[edit]

Just reviewed the Irving article, again. Notability addressed in the first seven footnotes. Will move it back into the mainspace unless you have additional concerns.--173.59.205.137 (talk) 01:53, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • I think it's ready to go; also see on Cmagha's user page that others have reviewed it positively. What are the remaining objections, and how do we appeal if there are still objections?--Coldplay3332 (talk) 01:58, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Here is the page, Spartaz, if you need a refresher:

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User:Cmagha/The_Irving_Literary_Society_(Cornell_University) --Cmagha (talk) 02:03, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for [13]

[edit]

An editor has asked for a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review# http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User:Cmagha/The_Irving_Literary_Society_(Cornell_University) |deletion review]] of [14]. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Cmagha (talk) 16:37, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment

[edit]

Hi Spartaz! I added a RfC to the article Brazil and weapons of mass destruction due to constant reverts. Could you take a look and leave your input here? Thanks! Limongi (talk) 13:30, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lists

[edit]

Uninterrupted I'd have had the first column fully sourced today..... Comments by people such as Maunus really don't strike me with any confidence... Now the sourcing of this list will be delayed further until it becomes more apparent the future of this article. I'd be extremely annoyed to spend hours sourcing this fully and then find it deleted. I'm annoyed enough as it is that this was taken to AFD in the middle of enmasse sourcing. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:48, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DGaw

[edit]

Looking at his other recent edits, it looks like he's using some kind of naughty word filter and my edit showed up on it. Without considering the context, my statement could easily be misunderstood. Tasty monster (=TS ) 05:17, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • all the more reason why he should be checking what he is removing. He only just got rollback and its a tool to use judiciously. I suspect, looking at the contribs, that he might have accidentally clicked on his watchlist in the wrong place. I have done that myself from time to time. I'm sure its nothing malicious, can't fault the other rollbacks but (s)he does need to explain/take a little more care. Spartaz Humbug! 05:21, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello... mea culpa and apologies, as noted elsewhere. It appears the user interface on my phone's browser is more challenging than I had suspected. I shall be more careful, as you suggest, and will avoid accessing the site in a way that's likely to cause a recurrence. --DGaw (talk) 12:05, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Nazi Party members

[edit]

I can't understand how you could have closed the deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Nazi Party members early. I'm OK with it being kept myself, but the closure seems a departure from normal procedure. You said you closed it because the nomination was withdrawn, but that only applies when there are no arguments remaining in favour of deletion - and there were plenty of other delete votes and other arguments - such as the argument that it should be a category. As I said, I'm not unhappy, just perplexed. StAnselm (talk) 21:08, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disappointing given that the whole list is sourced and there are NO BLP issues. For Christ's sake this AFD is a joke.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:26, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Buddhist sex abuse cases

[edit]

I would be obliged if you could tell me where the article (which you have deleted from mu userspace) can be viewed to reach a consensus. The article was deleted without warning me that it had been tagged for deletion and I don't know whether it was ever discussed. Why shouldn't it be suitable? What is controversial about it? I have asked for the article's deletion to be reviewed. I would be grateful if you would give me a fuller account of your action failing which I do propose to restore the article in my userspace so that interested parties can understand what the dispute (from which I was nevertheless ever given the opportunity to contribute to) refers to. Rinpoche (talk) 07:03, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • The DRV will determine the consensus. The article lists living people who have not been convicted of an offence as sex abusers. That's why we can't host the article. A serious allegation of that requires proof. Can you prove with multiple concrete incontrovertible sources that each and every one of them was a sex offender? Also beware of SYNTH. If the sources do not say that they are sex abusers then you cannot list them in an article titled sex abuse. Spartaz Humbug! 09:57, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • First of all you introduce the term 'sex offender', once again conflating abuse necessarily with criminality. This really is very remiss indeed of you. I'm surprised you are seemingly unembarrassed by this persistent error you perpetrate.
    • Regarding your remark about sources, with the exception of Ole Nydahl all of the cases I cite are to be found sourced on the individuals' concerned own wiki pages, are adequately sourced by me and are entirely not contentious either because the behaviour had led to resignation or (in the case of Trungpa, Tendzin and Sogyal) is indeed multiply and incontrovertibly sourced. In the case of Nydahl the situation is unusual since he makes no secret of his sexual relationships with his students but justifies it as equipowered and this is noted by me in the article.
    • I don't understand your reference to SYNTH ('look and feel'?)but once again what is at stake I think here is your confounding of abuse with criminality. Not all abuse is criminal. It's not criminal for a teacher to have sex with an adult student but it is abusive and there is absolutely nothing misleading or 'SYNTH' about describing the relationship as abusive.
    • Will you please now address the question of your confounding of abuse with criminality and let me know your proposals? Rinpoche (talk) 10:50, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

[edit]

This was very kind of you. Thanks, nableezy - 21:32, 15 October 2010 (UTC) Hey this is ChipRip, I understand that u deleted my "Jay Grote" article which I'm fine with, but I was wondering if it would be possible for u to send the article to me just so I can have it to read. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChipRip (talk • contribs) 02:05, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New Life Fellowship

[edit]

Gebet für die Welt. Hänssler. p. 405 ISBN 978-0813342757. has it as having 160,000 adherents. Hence I ask you to restore that article. Best wishes, Sarcelles (talk) 17:09, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Briffa and edit warring

[edit]

Are you sure that there was edit warring on Keith Briffa? User:Squiddy and I had a small dispute, but we stopped editing and were discussing things civilly on the Talk page. Then User:Atmoz reverted the last change. Atmoz should not have done that, but s/he did not realize that there was an on-going discussion.

Your charge that I somehow violated BLP is strongly disputed. If you are going to make such a charge, then back it up with a citation of the relevant part of BLP. And stop trying to go all gung-ho with blocks if you do not know what you are talking about. I think that it would have been better to wait and see if the discussion could be resolved on Talk, before protecting the page. AlfBit (talk) 16:41, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I said on the talk page, I didn't know that stuff was added today. I just stumbled across the article and removed what I thought was a BLP vio. I regret the second revert, although I still believe it to be against policy, and have withdrawn from the article and talk. So feel free to lift the prot if you want. -Atmoz (talk) 18:59, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Irving Literary Society (2nd nomination)

[edit]

As you closed the first AfD for this title, you may wish to comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Irving Literary Society (2nd nomination). The story is long and convoluted but there's a timeline at this new AfD. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 18:16, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hamas and the Taliban analogy

[edit]
hatting a long discussion, see my conclusion below

Spartaz, please further explain your reasoning for concluding that the results at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hamas and the Taliban analogy was a consensus to delete (so that’s what you went ahead and just did). Your “A plain reading of the discussion” comes up short and seems a case of [[WP:I DON'T LIKE IT]]. The reasoning various editors offered to keep was arguably as sound as that offered by those who wanted to delete. Most importantly, the results appear to not support the notion that there was a consensus to delete; quite the opposite. With 15 votes to keep and 13 to delete or merge, there was no consensus whatsoever to delete the article. It appears only that you took it upon yourself to decide that since A) you strongly agree with the minority view, and B) you are an admin with access to special tools, you can overrule the desires of the community. Things do not work like that here at en.Wikipedia. Greg L (talk) 19:49, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • A plain reading refers to my understanding of the key issues in the AFD. Essentially the keep side argued that the article was well sourced and the delete side argued that the sources did not specifically discuss hamas and the taliban analogy and there were several requests for specific sourcing that did that were ignored. The absence of a specific source advanced in the discussion to address this demand and the fact that the OR/SYTH arguments were consistent all the way through the discussion and not effectively rebutted meant that my assessment was that this was the key argument in the discussion. I discarded many keep votes because they were assertions of sources without any detail. I have a standard approach to challenges on AFD closes. If you can show me two decent sources that discuss the subject of Hamas and the Taliban Analogy in detail then I will undelete the article. Alternatively I can userfy the page for further work in user space. I disagree with arguments about supervotes and idontlike it because closed purely on my review of the strength of arguments in the discussion and the delete side would have been blown out of the water immediately the specific sourcing was provided. Since it wasn't their arguments had clear weight and so many of the keep votes were weak assertions that did not counter the delete argument just arguing to the contrary by assertion. Consensus is not a head count its looking at which arguments are most policy based. Votes by assertion usually do not carry much weight - specific sources are extremely powerful. That's the simple solution here - show sources. Spartaz Humbug! 02:50, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Both sides had reasonable arguments and the result was leaning towards no consensus. Your reasoning, Spartaz, is very ambiguous:

. In the light of this the arguments that this is synth/OR without specific sources appears to be sufficiently compelling

Reading the article it is more than clear sources exist that draw specific parallels between the Taliban and Hamas. Another article you deleted, Howard Bloom, was also closer to no consensus than delete. You gave no explanation for your decision. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:33, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikifan I have nothing to say to you after your appalling behaviour last time we encountered each other. Go away. Let someone else discuss this with me. Spartaz Humbug! 02:50, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Spartaz -- I wonder if your response to Wikifan may not be in direct contravention of your wp:admin obligations. I would suggest that you consider responding, in keeping with those obligations.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:18, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's unfortunate to see admins being harassed for good faith closures of AfDs. Experienced users should not need to be reminded that AfDs are not votes, decided upon by raw numbers, but by the strength of arguments made by the participants. Gatoclass (talk) 05:35, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Spartaz is not being “harassed”, Gatoclass so please desist with that sort of tone as it strikes me as posturing for effect. His judgement is being questioned and that is fair game—always. No rule or guideline on Wikipedia states that the decision making of admins is presumed to be flawless and in this particular instance the judgement of Spartaz is seriously in doubt. And you need not be preaching to anyone here about how consensus is not based upon raw numbers but is in large part based upon the “strength of arguments made by the participants”. The entire system of Wikipedia would collapse if any ol’ admin can come to a AfD with 15 votes to keep and 13 to delete or merge and pronounce that the reasoning of those who voted to ‘delete’ was so profoundly logical that it amounted to not only a majority but a *consensus to delete*. That sort of stunt is the privilege enjoyed by kings and has no place here. Greg L (talk) 17:31, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request for reversion of closure

[edit]

With all due respect, and while I am absolutely sure it was a good faith closure, I think that you called it wrong. Did you read the full discsussion? The requests were certainly NOT ignored. If anything, the replies were ignored. The sources listed in the AfD as discussing the topic of the analogy were:

  • the Journal of Current Trends in Islamist Ideology ,
  • The Journal of International Security Affairs,
  • Inside Hamas: the untold story of militants, martyrs and spies,
  • Palestinians: Background and U.S. Relations. By Jim Zanotti,
  • Xinhua,
  • the Associated press,
  • Bloomberg,
  • Haaretz,
  • AFP,
  • Jerusalem Post,
  • the Hudson Institute,
  • The Weekly Middle East Reporter,
  • the Journal of Public Economics,
  • Crossovers: Anti-Zionism and Anti-Semitism,
  • The Australian,
  • Circunstancia,
  • Focus on terrorism,
  • The Spectator,
  • Al-Sharq Al-Awsat,
  • The Washington Times,
  • "Radical, religious, and violent: the new economics of terrorism",
  • The Fundamentalist City?: Religiosity and the Remaking of Urban Space,
  • Adkronos,
  • National Review,
  • Journal of Contemporary Islam,
  • "Banned: a Rough Guide",
  • The New Humanist,
  • the Congressional Research Service (CRS),
  • "Defense Update",
  • "HAMAS and Israel: Conflicting Strategies of Group-Based Politics",
  • "Hamas Rule in Gaza: Three Years On" - Crown Center for Middle East studies,
  • Hamas: The Islamic Resistance Movement By Beverley Milton-Edwards, Stephen Farrell,
  • "Hamas in politics: democracy, religion, violence" By Jeroen Gunning,
  • The council of foreign affairs,
  • The Daily Hurriyet,
  • Khaled Al-Hroub, one of the world's top experts on Hamas.
  • The analogy was used by leaders such as Benjamin Netanyahu and Abu Mazen, and specifically referred to by both Hamas founders.

All the sources above are disussing the analogy directly, either positively (making the analogy) or negatively (criticizing the analogy). The requirement for notability is "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", and significant coverage was established.

I'm afraid that you were mislead by some people repeating the mantra of "no sources", despite the sources given, and some others systemically attempting to discredit without justification every one of the given sources.

According to the notability guideline there is no requirement that the above sources MAIN topic is the analogy. Nevertheless, many of the above sources had the analogy as their MAIN topic. There were many, many strong arguments given for keeping the article by many different people. At VERY least, you should have closed it as "no consensus". If you do not reverse your decision, I kindly request that you userfy the article into my account to allow us to proceed with a well reasoned appeal.

Let's take for example professor Nezar Alsayyad, who writes (as editor) in her book "The Fundamentalist City?: Religiosity and the Remaking of Urban Space" that a growing number of analysts have denounced openly the "systematic, massive and explicit efforts" at Talibanization led by Hamas in the Gaza Strip. This is a direct reference to the fact that other scholars are making the analogy of the actions of Hamas and Taliban. Or take Berman, a world renown economist from UC San Diego National Bureau of Economic Research, who noted that both groups gained support by providing providing social welfare, and developed into effective and violent militias; both received subsidies from abroad; both underwent increases in stringency of practice as they gained power; both require members to undergo a costly initiation rite of personal sacrifice; and both changed their ideologies drastically and at great cost to members. Both of the above books are most certainly not primary sources, they are secondary scholarly sources based on dozens and hundreds of citations. Marokwitz (talk) 05:39, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Difficult since you deleted the article. I simply copied from the AfD. If you userfy it, I would be able to. Marokwitz (talk)
I'd assumed that since you listed the references you had them all but that's a reasonable request. I'll pop it in your user space. Please review the sources before you dump them on my talk page, just show me what you consider to be the best two or three and we can discuss after I review. Spartaz Humbug! 05:53, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Spartaz -- did you not review all the sources, before closing the AfD?--Epeefleche (talk) 06:22, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Of course not. If I had you would accuse me of superimposing my view of the sources over that of the discussion. My role as the closer ism to review the discussion not make my own opinion of the material under discussion. There is a discussion about this somewhere in the archives of WT:AFD. I'm not the only closing admin who prefers to rely entirely on the discussion. Seems you can't win whatever way you approach it. Spartaz Humbug! 06:26, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, here are some examples of sources discussing the analogy:

Sorry to clog up your talkpage with this, but I felt it imporant to point out that the Fundamentalist City book apparently contains only that sentence on the comparison, if one discounts the Israeli TV comparison she notes, about how both Hamas and the Taliban are muslims and have, er, big beards (I'm not joking). Comparisons between Hamas and the Israeli government and settler movement are actually more prominent in the book, as befits the book's organisation and approach (shared space). In fact, "Hamas" and "Taliban" (rather than Talibanization in that one sentence) don't seem to appear even on the same page at all, judging by google book text search. The economist in question actually lumps Hamas, Taliban and Jewish Underground together; there's no "analogy" there (we don't have Stalin - Pinochet analogy pages based on analyses of authoritarian regimes that contain the two). Whatever Marokwitz suggests as evidence, I would advise asking for quotes of paragraphs, not just single sentences. (We'd really need an RS chapter on the analogy for notability, but I think even a paragraph or even three consecutive sentences would be a tall challenge based on the sources so far presented) This was the issue, I believe, at the AfD. People voting for delete looked at the sources claimed as analytical,and found nothing of any substance to support claims of analysis. No response came except a reassertion. One sentence in a 250 page book doesn't pass muster.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 06:24, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
At this stage I don't want to go down the road of re-arguing the AFD here. I will review and make a decision. Spartaz Humbug! 06:30, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the request for entire paragraphs: Here is a quote from the Berman article.

"The next section provides background on the Taliban and Hamas, highlighting the

common puzzles and drawing parallels.

...

The Taliban and Hamas are both highly ritualistic, extremely conservative Muslim groups. They belong to a family of radical sects whose religious behavior represents a clear break from traditional practice. They augment the prohibitions of traditional Islamic practice, such as dress codes and shaving. They tend to segregate themselves from other Muslims and to be extremely intolerant of deviation, in contrast to the tolerance of traditional Islam. Though often termed “fundamentalist” – as if returning to some historic norm of practice, these groups actually practice norms unprecedented in their extremism.

Just as the Taliban militia are an offshoot of the nonviolent JUI, the Hamas is a direct descendant of the Muslim Brotherhood, the first modern radical religious movement in Islam.

...

To summarize, the Taliban and Hamas are both radical Islamic groups that turned violent. While their geographical and theological origins are distinct, they share several functional characteristics which suggest investigating their behavior in parallel, as summarized in Table I. Both movements arose in environments with weak local government and responded by providing a local public good. Both are militias that formed as affiliates of venerable nonviolent radical Islamic organizations, the Hamas from the Islamic Brotherhood and the Taliban from the Jamiate-Ulema-Islam (JUI) in Pakistan. Both received generous subsidies from abroad, either for ideological reasons or in return for services. Both underwent increases in stringency of practice as they gained power. Younger members undergo some costly initiation rite of personal sacrifice in each group. Both groups changed their ideologies drastically and at great cost to members. Both developed into militias which produced local public goods using violence. These similarities should not be overstated. One difference is that the Hamas view most Palestinians as potential members while the Taliban seem to see most Afghans as a conquered people."

To summarize, the analogy is backed by academic sources, was widely used by at least two heads of state, and was denied by prominent leaders including both founders f Hamas, the article was supported as keep by the majority of !voters, which appeared to agree with the above points. It is a real topic of interest to our readers and I think that deleting it is a mistake. Marokwitz (talk) 06:33, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To summarize, the analogy is backed by academic sources, was widely used, and denied by prominent leaders, and the article was supported as keep by the majority of !voters, which appeared to agree with the above points. It is a real topic of interest to our readers and I think that deleting it is a mistake. Marokwitz (talk) 06:33, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for the summary of sources. Just to add my own brief comments:
  • The Talibanization of Gaza is a paper published by the Hudson Institute, a neoconservative think tank;
  • Hamas, Taliban and the Jewish Underground was written by an economist with no credentials in the appropriate field;
  • The "Hamas Rule in Gaza" article mentions the word "Taliban" exactly twice, and makes no direct comparisons in the body of the article.
  • Op-eds in Arab papers are of no consequence given that most Arab media outlets are government mouthpieces.
In short, this list of sources just confirms my own view that the article is insufficiently sourced. Gatoclass (talk) 06:57, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your response raises interesting questions. I wonder,
  • A professor and author of academic books on the topic of Terrorism and Insurgency, such as "Radical, Religious and Violent: The New Economics of Terrorism", and an author of several widely cited papers on the economics of terrorism, perhaps the world leading authority on this topic, has "no credentials"?
  • Are Neoconservative academics automatically non reliable?
  • Is the number of times a source uses the word "Taliban" a reliable indicator to whether it is discussing the topic of Hamas having to choose between the Taliban model and the Turkish (Erdogan) model of Islamist rule?
  • Are opinions of Arab commentators non notable since they are "are government mouthpieces"? Or perhaps this makes their opinions MORE notable?

Marokwitz (talk) 07:08, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Out of respect for Spartaz' desire not to re-open the debate, I am not going to respond to this. I have made the points I felt needed making and I'll leave it at that. Gatoclass (talk) 07:12, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am here to echo Marokwitz request that the decision be reversed. That's a lot of material and a lot of sources that Wiki now lacks. OmarKhayyam (talk) 08:13, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the comments of those above, including Omar and Marokwitz, to the effect that the decision be reconsidered and reversed.--Epeefleche (talk) 10:00, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I was aware my talkpage is not a venue for "votes for reversal" how about you leave me to read the sources. Spartaz Humbug! 10:53, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • All: Spartaz seems to be saying that this is not the place to adjudicate his *decision* overruling the majority view at the AfD. He has not backed down from his decision so there is no point pursuing the matter one bit further here. I am deeply distressed that the arguments here digressed to where atomic-level points were raised about the citations used in the article. The arguments here should have been limited to the fact that this move by Spartaz, was industrial-strength chutzpah because he presumed to override a majority view in an AfD in which there had been vigorous and thoughtful debate. He not only sided with the minority, he declared that side to be the consensus view, which I find absurd and unconscionable. He wrote above please provide on-line links to as much of the above as you can so I can review the sources myself. No. We should certainly not head down such a path where we begin treating Spartaz as if he has unilateral veto power that exceeds the collective decision-making of those who tediously engaged at the AfD. We don’t have to adjudicate the reasoning in the AfD again; we only need to expect that our admins not override the well-articulated desires of the community. Please, no more pursuing this matter here because it would indeed be badgering now that Spartaz has announced that this is not the proper venue. I am not sufficiently familiar with the ins and outs of Wikipedia procedure, but wherever the next formal venue is, that’s where we need to go next. Someone please alert me on my talk page once someone goes there and formally seeks to overcome this move. Greg L (talk) 17:43, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • That makes no sense whatsoever. I agreed to revisit the close but need to review the sources offered. I actually have a life outside wikipedia and haven't had time to do this as it clearly requires me to devote sufficient time to do this properly. What I asked was for people to stop arguing the toss about the article on my talk page while I was doing this. I don't think its unreasonable for you to allow me time to do the review. After all, it less then 24 hours since the close. If you don't want to extend good faith and show patience then you can go straight to DRV and wait a week while the whole AFD gets replayed and thousands of kilobytes of text get wasted. Alternatively you could just show some patience. Spartaz Humbug! 17:57, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • My reaction is as follows:
  1. If your time is so limited due to real-life obligations, then that seriously calls into question that you had sufficient time to properly weigh the pro and con arguments at the AfD before *thoughtfully* overruling a majority view over there.
  2. Many of the people who were participating in the AfD were up to their armpits in the article and fully understood such details as the citations it used. That you—after your deleting of the article—are only now familiarizing yourself with such details is shocking.
  3. I have all the time in the world to watch and see if you reverse yourself here since I have had next-to-zero involvement in contributing to the article in question; I don’t have what one might call “any skin in the game.”
  4. I do, however, have a keen sense of right and wrong on Wikipedia and find your unilateral move to be a metric ton of weapons-grade bullonium because you chose to override the majority and declare the minority to be a consensus (because their arguments make so darn much sense to you) when, by your own admission, you weren’t sufficiently familiar with the details and now need to familiarize yourself to see if you might be inclined to reverse yourself. Ergo…
  5. I find it distasteful that you would propose to review citations and whatnot before reversing yourself. You should reverse yourself right now because what you did was ill-considered and improper; going back to familiarize yourself with the facts that other editors—many of whom were specialists in the matter—had been vigorously debating in the AfD is too little, way too late.
So my suggestion to you is that you reverse yourself now, recuse yourself from admin-like (king-like) powers in that AfD from hereon, let the AfD run for 14 days (you nuked it after nine), and weigh in there only as a regular editor. Greg L (talk) 18:21, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Greg, while I appreciate you as an excellent editor, and your intentions are good, your above message is aggressive and provocative, and only serves to ruin any chance that the motion would be accepted. After being provoked this way any normal person would be pushed into an offensive. Please, let's try to keep the discussion strictly academic.Marokwitz (talk) 05:04, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Spartaz, as the person who opened this motion, I must distance myself from the words of Greg L which in whole do not reflect my opinion, and which I feel are totally counter productive. Please, if possible, try to ignore this. Marokwitz (talk) 05:04, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to review the sources this evening after my kids go to bed. ((note that my wife is away so I'm working, doing both ends of the school run, taking kids to extra-curricular activities and also have my parents out visiting)) With apologies for the delay, I have time issues recently, I'll try and get to an answer today. Spartaz Humbug! 14:46, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eli Berman

[edit]

For anyone engaged in this discussion, you may be interested to know that Eli Berman has a Wikipedia article now. Tijfo098 (talk) 03:05, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great work! Marokwitz (talk) 05:04, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That praise applies to you too, since you also contributed to it :-) Tijfo098 (talk) 06:11, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome of Review

[edit]

I have carefully reviewed the AFD and the specific sources provided by Marokwitz. I have ignore ignorant or polemic arguments that descend, rather unfortunately, to nasty personal attacks. What I find is that the source provided are not clearly and specifically about an analogy between Hamas and the Taliban. There seems, from the AFD decent arguments against the sources on RS and SYNTH/OR grounds. The delete votes show clear review of the provided sources and well argued explanations of why multiple users consider the sources used either to be unreliable or used as a SYNTH/OR to support something they are not specifically about. The delete arguments were not conclusively rebutted and many delete arguers clearly reviewed the discussion and supported the SYNTH/OR arguments put forward even after counter arguments were put forward. On the keep side we have many keep votes of very low value: per sources, per above, per point but still valuable. There really hasn't been a killer keep argument and it is surely significant that incontrovertible sources have not been provided to support the premise of the article. I do appreciate that IP articles inevitably devolve into pitched battles between users with entrenched position and that numerically the sides are often well matched, but CONSENSUS is a construct of what arguments are best placed against policy and the delete side clearly have the edge in terms of careful explanation of the concerns about sourcing, careful review of the content and direct well-argued reference to specific core policy (V/RS/OR) to explain why article should be deleted. The keep votes on the other had were almost all of very poor quality without showing evidence of careful consideration or well argued appeal to specific policy to back up the argument. They simply were not well enough grounded in policy to effectively rebut the delete arguments. Therefore I do not find myself drawn to the conclusion that my close was unreasonable or an incorrect reading of the consensus.

I realise that the keep voters will not be satisfied with these arguments and the above discussion I have hatted suggests that I can expect invective and accusations of incompetence rather then recognition that there is simply a disparate view of the application of consensus/policy in this discussion. Frankly I think I have borne enough abuse already (you know who I'm talking to) and do not wish to receive any more. This is obviously not going to be accepted so I suggest you just go directly to DRV and rehash the AFD there. If anyone is interested in advice from a DRV regular, I would suggest that arguments based around refuting the assertions of OR/SYTHN/RS issues will be more compelling then just asserting that I'm biased or incompetent. I only ask that whoever raises the DRV cut and pastes this entire section into the discussion to explain the reasoning for my deletion, my view of the close and the effect of my review. Spartaz Humbug! 19:49, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You put a merge tag on two pages that were already redirects, nothing there

[edit]

As an article about a company, Pink Pineapple failed, it only having one sentence about the company and then a list of all their titles. Most people commented on merging it, before I renamed it as List of titles by Pink Pineapple since it is a perfectly valid list article. Is merging this and the List of titles by Green Bunny into the List of Hentai companies article you created somehow better than keeping that information in two separate articles? There enough blue links to justify its own page, and no reason not to list all of their titles. Is the list of hentai companies just a list of companies, or a list of all the things those companies make? Please read over the discussions and make your case clear. Having to go through a lot of AFDs, you perhaps skim things through. No big deal, everyone makes mistakes. Dream Focus 05:26, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • That shows the weakness of closing discussions with scripts. There was no consensus in that discussion for a list of pink pinapple films. Moving the page to that location while there was no consensus to do so was disruptive and in my opinion it should be prohibited to move a page during an AFD unless there is a BLP vio that needs addressing in the title. The consensus of the AFD was that the material should be at List of Hentai companies. I seriously hope that you are not suggesting that I ignore a consensus and substitute an outcome that was explicitly rejected. That would be a supervote and would be naughty. If I were to express a personal opinion I might suggest that a list of films by a non-notable company would be indiscriminate information per WP:NOT but won't because I suspect that you aren't really interested in my opinion. Spartaz Humbug! 05:41, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    So the List of Hentai companies needs just the one sentence about the company that each article had, or does it also list not just Hentai companies as its title suggest, but all of their work as well? What exactly is to be merged? And if the article was clearly nothing but a list, the Wikipedia naming conventions state it should say "List of" in its name. Dream Focus 07:06, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The close was merge, the content of the merge is an editorial decision subject to any discussion/consensus on WT:List of Hentai Companies as amended by the 5P. It certainly needs no administrative intervention. Spartaz Humbug! 07:21, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

possible vandalism call

[edit]

So hi again. I wanna say what you do with my articles is not acceptable for me. If you do so again I will call you for vandalism, even if you´re admin. As you have seen, I have written Girlvana 3 and Girlvana 4, because you want to delete Girlvana. So my breath is really strong and I know the rules of Wikipedia! I know what is acceptable and what not, I am not stupid (High school you would say). And I know what possible future articles may be acceptable and not. So long. Do your work, I do my work. And Madison Ivy passes clearly PORNBIO, so your AFD is against the rules. --Hixteilchen (talk) 22:06, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why did my Batman edits get deleted?

[edit]

````Not sure if this is the right place, but couldn't find any place else to ask. I made some edits to the BATMAN TV SHOW page and they were all deleted. I tried again, and they were deleted again. I'm not trying a third time, but why were these edits deleted? Who do I ask? Where do I find out who/why deleted them? Hope you can help. Holy confusion! Abbythecat. ```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abbythecat (talk • contribs) 07:16, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • It appears that other editors do not agree with your changes and reverted then back. You are now edit warring [15] by reinserting the changes and might get blocked for that if you continue. The correct process now is to start a discussion on the article talk page and seek a a consensus on your changes. Spartaz Humbug! 08:08, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Abbythecat (talk) 08:28, 17 November 2010 (UTC) I made a few more edits, and put the "Batman" edits in before I read your reply. I'll go remove them now. Sorry. Holy bat-apology! abbythecat. Abbythecat (talk) 08:28, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Its ok, we all have to learn when we are new - there are a lot of rules to understand to contribute effectively. Go write something on the talk page and have a chat with the other editors about your changes. Spartaz Humbug! 08:39, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Abbythecat (talk) 08:44, 17 November 2010 (UTC) Well, after 6 rejections, I came back and made 2 edits that were accepted (gee, how'd that happen?)but now I'm back to getting rejected. So as Fanny sang "I've Had It". Holy obscure disco song reference! Goodbye. Abbythecat. Abbythecat (talk) 08:44, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Crissy Moran

[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Crissy Moran. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. == --Hixteilchen (talk) 07:20, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Spartaz/Archive11&oldid=1150001057"