User talk:Alpha Quadrant/Archive 9

Online Ambassadors: Time to join pods
Hello! If you're planning to be an active Online Ambassador for the upcoming academic term, now is the time to join one or more pods. (A pod consists of the instructor, the Campus Ambassadors, and the Online Ambassadors for single class.) The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) explains the expectations for being part of a pod as an Online Ambassador. (The MOU for pods in Canada is essentially the same.) In short, the role of Online Ambassadors this term consists of:
 * Working closely with the instructor and Campus Ambassadors, providing advice and perspective as an experienced Wikipedian
 * Helping students who ask for it (or helping them to find the help they need)
 * Watching out for the class as a whole
 * Helping students to get community feedback on their work

This replaces the 1-on-1 mentoring role for Online Ambassadors that we had in previous terms; rather than being responsible for individual students (some of whom don't want or help or are unresponsive), Online Ambassadors will be there to help whichever students in their class(es) ask for help.

You can browse the upcoming courses here: United States; Canada. More are being added as new pods become active and create their course pages.

Once you've found a class that you want to work with&mdash;especially if you some interest or expertise in the topic area&mdash;you should sign the MOU listing for that class and get in touch with the instructor. We're hoping to have at least two Online Ambassadors per pod, and more for the larger classes.

If you're up for supporting any kind of class and would like me to assign you to a pod in need of more Online Ambassadors, just let me know.

--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 16:30, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

PS: There are still a lot of student articles from the last term that haven't been rated. Please rate a few and update the list!

A pod suggestion for you: Business Data Communications
Hi AQ! I'm in the process of trying to find Online Ambassadors to support each of the classes for this coming term, and I thought you'd be a good fit for this one: [[Wikipedia:United States Education Program/Courses/Business Data Communications (Kari Walters). If you're up for it, please check out the Memorandum of Understanding (linked above) which sketches the expectations for Online Ambassadors this term, and then you can sign on to class and get in touch with the professor.

--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 15:28, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

inre Articles for deletion/Nithya (film)
While a relisting is usually to extend a discussion to gain a consensus, we actualy had a 100% consensus from all involved, including the nominator himself, that a redirect would be a suitable solution until filming commences.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 01:33, 1 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I reread the discussion, and I see what you mean. Thanks for pointing out my error. Best wishes, Alpha Quadrant    talk    14:32, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll be first to admit that without the deleters striking their votes, their supporting a redirect later in the discussion is not that obvious. Thanks much,  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 20:27, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Re: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Mark Boulle
Hi Alpha Quadrant. You rejected the article I submitted with a message that it doesn't have "reliable, third-party" sources. I'm just wondering why two of the sources that I referenced, Rave Magazine and the website of ABC Gold Coast, don't count. Rave Magazine is a leading street magazine in one of Australia's capital cities, and the ABC is Australia's national radio broadcaster. --Netocrat (talk) 22:56, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

re: sandbox → Ranveer Chandra
Hello AlphaQuadrant- I don't understand the rationale for moving content from my sandbox to article space. The content was incomplete and was created as a dummy example of how to code basic biography pages. Also, how does userpage content end up at requestedmoves - especially without any discussion with the owner of the userpage? Now that Ranveer Chandra exists, I don't know that deleting it is necessary, but I don't understand why the pagecode wasn't simply taken (or requested) from me and used to create the page rather than moving the whole subpage and its history (most of which is irrelevant to Ranveer Chandra), and now linking my account's history to a page with which I have no desire to have any connection. I'm less opposed to the final result (page was created) than to the unilateral decision, which should involve me, I feel. I know you just moved the page - I'm contacting you not because I feel that you are culpable but because you're surely better-informed than I am! Looking forward to your response. Thanks, Matttoothman (talk) 19:16, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Hello Matttoothman, I moved the your sandbox page to mainspace because of the requested move here. I noticed that the requester was an IP editor, but I had assumed you had unintentionally made the request logged out, as it was the IP's only edit. To answer the second part of your question, we move pages with their histories rather than make copy-paste moves in order to attribute the contributors of an article. If we failed to attribute the text without the writer's consent then it would be considered copyright infringement. I hope that answers your question. I apologize for not responding sooner. Best wishes, Alpha Quadrant    talk    19:01, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Freedom Centre International
I think you moved this into the mainspace. I actually helped this editor on IRC with refs. We could find very little.

Although the article looks okay, I only see one ref that mentions the subject (I may not be able to view some reference websites due to my location). Plus, the content has issues. I'm not sure this is fit for the mainspace on the grounds that it doesn't pass gng. I thought I'd drop you a line here before posting at article talk, in case I'm missing something obvious. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:07, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree, the article is a borderline case. From what I can can tell from the sources it appears the center is based in the UK, and it does appear there aren't many online sources. However, since there was at least one reliable third party source I accepted, as there may be more offline sources. If you think the article needs more work before mainspace, please feel free to revert my move. Best wishes, Alpha Quadrant    talk    23:30, 8 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't want to revert your move. And, I'm sorry to be a stickler. I'm actually quite the inclusionist, but this one doesn't have a leg to stand on. Plus, on IRC and elsewhere, I've refused to support many poorly-sourced orgs. If this were some for-profit Indian tech company, it would be AfD'd by now. I think maybe we're soft because it's a religious org. But, with a single ref, it's gnawing at my conscience.


 * The first time I refused it on IRC, I told the creator to dig for refs. He found no more. It is for this reason that an article talk or user talk page request for refs probably won't work. What do you think of the idea of AfDing it? I could even stick a copy in the creator's sandbox, so he can source it, and take a year to do it, as new media coverage emerges. I doubt that during AfD, he will dig/find more refs. My guess is that it has a 50 50 chance of survival there. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:54, 9 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I say AfD it. Some people at AfD are actually quite good at finding additional sources :) Although, when I looked at it, I'm sure it was more than just one decent source. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:57, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Template revisited
I again had to revert your edit to Template:Cleanup-link rot. So let me make that a warning this time. Please do not edit templates unless you are sure you know what you are doing, and are sure you have consensus for all the changes you make. Debresser (talk) 22:14, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

German redirect requests
I saw you created a redirect from Mord to murder (German law). The person who made the request is likely to be the German Reference Desk troll, and while some of his requests are worthwhile nonetheless, others are just another form of trolling. In this case, all mainspace articles linking to Mord refer to (probably non-notable) musicians, not to the legal concept. Thus I've nominated the redirect for deletion, and I would ask you to be a little more critical of 84.62.204.7's requests in the future. Yours, Huon (talk) 18:13, 21 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Hello Huon, I accepted the redirect based on this Wiktionary entry. According to the entry (and |en|mord google translate)Mord is German for murder. It seems like a plausible redirect for the legal concept, even if the user's intent was to troll. Best, Alpha Quadrant    talk    18:24, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Mord listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Mord. Since you had some involvement with the Mord redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Bridgeplayer (talk) 19:55, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

WT:Articles for creation/Greedy Spiders
Gamezebo is a WikiProject Video Games-approved reliable source. Thanks, → Σ  τ  c. 07:08, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Research into the user pages of Wikipedians: Invitation to participate
Greetings,

My name is John-Paul and I am a student with the University of Alberta specializing in Communications and Technology.

I would like to include your Wikipedia user page in a study I am doing about how people present themselves online. I am interested in whether people see themselves in different ways, online and offline. One of the things I am looking at is how contributors to Wikipedia present themselves to each other through their user pages. Would you consider letting me include your user page in my study?

With your consent, I will read and analyze your user page, and ask you five short questions about it that will take about ten to fifteen minutes to answer. I am looking at about twenty user pages belonging to twenty different people. I will be looking at all user pages together, looking for common threads in the way people introduce themselves to other Wikipedians.

I hope that my research will help answer questions about how people collaborate, work together, and share knowledge. If you are open to participating in this study, please reply to this message, on your User Talk page or on mine. I will provide you with a complete description of my research, which you can use to decide if you want to participate.

Thank-you,

John-Paul Mcvea

University of Alberta

(Redacted)

Johnpaulmcvea (talk) 21:32, 22 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Sure, you can include my userpage in your research. I would be happy to help. Best, Alpha Quadrant    talk    21:46, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank-you for agreeing to participate in my study
Thank-you for agreeing to participate in my study, entitled “Online Self-presentation among Wikipedians.” I appreciate it.

As I indicated in my last message, here are five short questions about your user page that I would like you to answer. These will help me to understand your motivations for creating a user page such as yours. Please be as brief or as thorough as you like.

5 QUESTIONS

1. Are you a member of social networks such Facebook or MySpace?

2. In addition to maintaining a user page in Wikipedia, have you also written or edited articles? If so, about how many times?

3. What are the key messages about yourself that you hope to convey with your user page?

4. Have your Wikipedia contributions ever received feedback, such as being edited by others or commented on? Have you received a message from another Wikipedia user? If so, do you think your user page positively or negatively affected what other people said and how they said it?

5. Do you see your “online self” as being different from your “offline self?” Can you elaborate?

Please indicate your answers to these questions on your talk page, or on mine. Please respond by October 1st so that I have time to properly read your responses. If you like, you can email your answers to me instead (jmcvea@ualberta.ca).

Thank you again : )

Johnpaulmcvea (talk) 21:53, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

INDICATING CONSENT

By answering these questions, you indicate your agreement with the following statements:

•	That you understand that you have been asked to be in a research study.

•	That you have read and received a copy of the Information Sheet, attached below (“Additional Information”).

•	That you understand the benefits and risks involved in taking part in this research study.

•	That you have had an opportunity to ask questions and discuss this study.

•	That you understand that you are free to refuse to participate, or to withdraw from the study at any time, without consequence, and that your information will be withdrawn at your request.

•	That the issue of confidentiality been explained to you and that you understand who will have access to your information (see “Additional Information”).

•	That you agree to participate.

ADDITONAL INFORMATION

Background

•	I am asking you to participate in a research project that is part of my MA degree.

•	I am asking you because you have created a user page in Wikipedia that other people can use to learn about you.

Purpose

•	My research is about how people present themselves online.

•	I will look at how people present themselves when presenting themselves to the Wikipedia community.

Study Procedures

•	With your consent, I will analyze the language of your user page and gather basic statistics such as the count of words, the frequency of words, the number of sections, and so on.

•	I will also read the text of your user page, looking for elements in common with ads posted by other people. I will note whether you include a picture, or links to other content on the internet.

•	I ask you to answer my five questions, above. This will take about ten to fifteen minutes to complete. I will ask you to answer the questions within a week, and send your answers to me.

•	Throughout my research, I will adhere to the University of Alberta Standards for the Protection of Human Research Participants, which you can view at http://www.uofaweb.ualberta.ca/gfcpolicymanual/policymanualsection66.cfm

Benefits

•	There is no direct benefit to you for participating in this research. You may, however, find it interesting to read my perspective on how you present yourself online.

•	I hope that the information I get from doing this study will help understand how technology affects the way people come together into a society.

•	There is no reward or compensation for participating in this research.

Risk

•	There is no direct risk for participating in this research.

Voluntary Participation

•	You are under no obligation to participate in this study. Participation is completely voluntary.

•	You can opt out of this study at any time before October 10, 2011, with no penalty. You can ask to have me withdraw any data that I have collected about you. Even if you agree to be in the study, you can change your mind and withdraw.

•	If you decline to continue or you wish to withdraw from the study, your information will be removed from the study at your request.

Confidentiality

•	This research will be used to support a project that is part of my MA degree.

•	A summary of my research will be available on the University of Alberta website.

•	Your personally identifiable information will be deleted and digitally shredded as soon as I have finished gathering data about you.

•	Data will be kept confidential. Only I will have access to the computer file containing the data. It will be password protected. It will not be sent by email or stored online.

•	I will always handle my data in compliance with University of Alberta standards.

•	If you would like to receive a copy of my final report, please ask.

Further Information

•	If you have any further questions regarding this study, please do not hesitate to contact Dr. Stanley Varnhagen, my research advisor for this project. If you have concerns about this study, you may contact the University of Alberta Research Ethics Committee at 780-492-2615. This office has no affiliation with the study investigators.

Thank-you again!

Non-admin closure of the discussion concerning Mariko Honda
Hello. I've undone your closure of Articles for deletion/Mariko Honda and relisted the discussion. Per WP:NACD, "deletion discussions must be decided in accordance with consensus". In this case, the discussion does not reflect a consensus to keep the article about this living person, given that it reflects serious doubts about the reliability of the sources it uses.  Sandstein  06:29, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

East Side Middle School New York City
I have declined your speedy deletion tag on East Side Middle School New York City; the phrase "Note that schools are not eligible under this criterion" is what's known as a hint :). Ironholds (talk) 01:32, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Apologies, I was unaware that middle schools were exempt from A7. I thought the exemption only applied to High schools. Thanks for notifying me of my error. Best, Alpha Quadrant    talk    01:47, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It's schools generally, it seems. Ironholds (talk) 02:01, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

thanks for help
thanks buddy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Preetam040 (talk • contribs) 15:09, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Preetam040 15:13, 27 September 2011 (UTC)is it ok? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Preetam040 (talk • contribs)


 * Yes, that is correct. If you want to reply to a message in a section, you can click the small [edit] button to the right. Alpha Quadrant    talk    15:16, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Update on courses and ambassador needs
Hello, Ambassadors!

I wanted to give you one last update on where we are this term, before my role as Online Facilitator wraps up at the end of this week. Already, there are over 800 students in U.S. classes who have signed up on course pages this term. About 40 classes are active, and we're expecting that many more again once all the classes are up and running.

On a personal note, it's been a huge honor to work with so many great Wikipedians over the last 15 months. Thanks so much to everyone who jumped in and decided to give the ambassador concept a try, and double thanks those of you who were involved early on. Your ideas and insights and enthusiasm have been the foundation of the program, and they will be the keys the future of the program.

Courses looking for Online Ambassadors
Still waiting to get involved with a class this term, or ready to take on more? We have seven classes that are already active and need OA support, and eleven more that have course pages started but don't have active students yet. Please consider joining one or more of these pods!

Active courses that really need Online Ambassadors:
 * Sociology of Poverty
 * Architectural Design
 * Introduction to Educational Psychology
 * Intro to Mass Communication
 * Psychology Seminar
 * Theories of the State
 * Advanced Media Studies

Courses that may be active soon that need Online Ambassadors:


 * Housing and Social Policy
 * Anthropology, Wikipedia, and the Media
 * History & Systems
 * Horror Cinema
 * Digital Media... just bits in a box
 * Composition I
 * Telecommunications Management
 * Training Systems
 * Stigma: Culture, Deviance, Identity
 * Art and Terrorism
 * Political Violence and Insurgency

--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 23:10, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Clive Wilkinson page
Hello - Thanks for your tips about correcting the references. I've made updates, can you let me know if they will suffice?

Best,

Dragonfish9 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dragonfish9 (talk • contribs) 23:32, 28 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, the sourcing is much better now. Excellent work, I will now accept it for you, so there is no need to resubmit. Best wishes, Alpha Quadrant    talk    23:36, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you kindly! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dragonfish9 (talk • contribs) 23:38, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

CSDing AfC pages
Any reason for that?  Kwsn  (Ni!)  16:42, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I am only CSDing submissions that meet CSD criteria G1, G2, G3, or G10. In this discussion and several other discussions at AfC, we reached consensus to delete G1, G2, G3, G10, and G12 submissions. We normally CSD them when we review them. However, there are a fairly large number of submissions that meet the CSD criteria that have not been CSDed yet. Therefore I am going through and CSDing submissions in Category:AfC submissions declined as jokes, looking for articles that meet the criteria, after this recent discussion brought up the fact that there are many BLP violations in our declined AfC submissions. Best, Alpha Quadrant    talk    16:54, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I've supported these before, but there are better ways to go about then mass spam CSD. You could userpage a list of links and poke one admin with twinkle or mass delete. -- DQ  (t)   (e)  17:03, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I compiled a list from Category:AfC submissions declined as jokes to Articles for creation/Joke submissions. Alpha Quadrant    talk    17:38, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * K, I will look at them in the morning, but there is a section of redlinks in there. -- DQ  (t)   (e)  05:54, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, The Earwig went through several of the submissions and deleted some of them. It appears that about 1/5 of the submissions declined as jokes, are not blatant jokes, or don't meet G1, G2, G3, or G10. Alpha Quadrant    talk    20:06, 30 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Sry for "spamming" here: as per request from User:Gfoley4 I post the IRC log of our consensus to delete the "already exists"-submission. mabdul 12:43, 1 October 2011 (UTC)


 * [21:42:06] <+mabdul|ping> maybe for articles that already exists: create an cat and I will check every article and then megre them (if needed) and then tagging with (yes, with what?) MFD?
 * [21:42:39] <+Earwig> nah, just a histmerge if applicable (otherwise attribution) and then G6
 * [21:54:16] <+mabdul|ping> so what about the "already exists" articles?
 * [21:54:43] <+Earwig> I'm getting a lot of stuff like this - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/James_Vickers
 * [21:54:48] <+Earwig> what do we do with that?
 * [21:55:12] <+Alpha_Quadrant> Earwig: it really doesn't have any useful content
 * [21:55:14] <+Alpha_Quadrant> delete
 * [21:55:15] <+Earwig> right
 * [21:55:16] <+Earwig> well
 * [21:55:22] <+Earwig> do we delete blank submissions?
 * [21:55:34] <+Alpha_Quadrant> we could
 * [21:55:36] <+Earwig> ...because that's basically what it is
 * [21:55:48] <+Alpha_Quadrant> Blank submission meet G2
 * [21:56:02] <+Earwig> hmm... this is kinda borderline-G2
 * [21:56:14] <+Earwig> but useless nonetheless
 * [21:56:22] <+Alpha_Quadrant> yeah
 * [21:57:17] <+mabdul|ping> Earwig: I would check the "already exists" article drafts and merge them with the existing article(s) --> and then what to do with the AFC drafts?
 * [21:57:25] <+mabdul|ping> yeah, delete blank submissions
 * [21:58:02] <+Earwig> mabdul|ping: tag for histmerge if that makes sense, otherwise attribute the original content authors in your edit summary, then tag for G6
 * [21:58:17] <+mabdul|ping> Earwig: can you check with Earwigbot (or maybe a database dump)if there are user-space articles similar (or with at least the same headline) as AFC articles?
 * [21:58:39] <+mabdul|ping> Earwig: but mostly AFC submissions arent copy 'n paste jobs..
 * [21:58:46] <+Earwig> er, not at the moment, that sounds like it'll take a bit of time
 * [21:58:51] <+mabdul|ping> (I mean for the "already exists" pages)
 * [21:58:57] <+mabdul|ping> ok
 * [22:10:00] <+mabdul|ping> so if I "merge" the drafts of Category:AfC_submissions_declined_as_already_existing, then I should tag the AFC drafts as G6, right? (maybe I will do this at the weekend)


 * No problem. I added bullet points to the above to make it easier to read. Alpha_Quadrant    (talk)    14:08, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Re: Article for Creation, Laura Ruderman
Hi Alpha Quadrant,

I would very much like some help correcting the issues in this article. It's the first time I've created one, so I wasn't sure where the weaknesses would be, just that there would be some.

On notability, this is the one thing I was pretty sure of. The 'Notability for Politicians' begins: Politicians Shortcut: WP:POLITICIAN Politicians and judges who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office, and members or former members of a national, state or provincial legislature.[12]

Ruderman held statewide office for five years in Washington (state legislature). So hopefully this does qualify.

Looking back over the article, I would like your help with 3rd party sourcing. For instance, I am assuming that The News Tribune is a reliable 3rd party source. The Democratic Leadership Council site is not peer-reviewed, but I used it to show that they named her 'one of 100 to watch' - I'm not sure how much more of a source I could find. The Digital Learning Commons is part of the Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction - was it a problem? The citation on the 2004 race for WA Secretary of State is from another Wikipedia article. I'm guessing the 'Left Space' citation is not strong.

Anyway, I'd very much like to take you up on your offer for specifics --

Thanks!

Dana Good — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dpgood (talk • contribs) 04:15, 30 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, you are correct. As a State representative from 1999 to 2004, she would meet the notability guidelines for politicians. However, some of the sources backing up the information are a bit questionable. The first source (and fifth source) is a news blog. While they are considered fairly reliable, we usually don't rely solely on them. The second source appears to be reliable. The third source appears to be a primary source. The fourth source cites another Wikipedia article. Wikipedia cannot cite itself, as anyone can change Wikipedia articles. The sixth source cites Wikia, where, like Wikipedia articles can be changed by anyone. As this is a biography of a living person, all information in the article needs to be cited by reliable third party sources, or removed. (this news archive search might help you) I hope this helps you. Alpha Quadrant    talk    14:32, 30 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Is this the right place to continue the conversation?

Thanks for your feedback. I can see how wiki articles are not a good source. I'll see if I can find other sources for that information; if not, I'll remove it.

I'd like to push back against the primary source concern, because I am not interpreting the content of the primary source, just reporting it. If I read the section on primary sources correctly, this is the only good use of a primary source ("A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source."). That said, I will see if I can find a 3rd party source too.

I have to look at the 'news blogs' again. I thought they were articles written by the paper (the News Tribune). If not, I'll definitely look for other sources.

If you could give me some feedback about the primary source question, I'll update the article once I find more acceptable sources for the wiki and wikia data, or remove it. And I'll look into the authorship of the News Tribune articles.

Thanks again,

Dana Good 16:20, 30 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dpgood (talk • contribs)


 * Yes, primary sources can be used to cite uncontroversial statements. However, they should not be used exclusively. The News Tribune articles appear to be blog posts written by the newspaper's employees. It is a reliable third party source, however it was not necessarily checked for accuracy and an additional source should be used if possible. (not required but preferred.) The source doesn't need to be replaced, but it would be stronger if there was another source supporting it.(and it appears that source two does that, to some extent.) I hoped that helps you. Best, Alpha Quadrant    talk    19:16, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Greetings - could you check over the citations for me again?

Thanks... Dana Good 21:32, 30 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dpgood (talk • contribs)


 * Nice work on the citations. I have accepted the article. Best wishes, Alpha Quadrant    (talk)    21:57, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Newspaper vending machine
Hello! Your submission of Newspaper vending machine at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:32, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:AfC submissions declined as lacking reliable sources
Category:AfC submissions declined as lacking reliable sources, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Sir Armbrust Talk to me  Contribs  14:35, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Request for adoption
Hi, I am up for adoption because I want to learn more about creating and maintaing content on wikipedia. I mainly watch / edit computing, sciences and ancient history / archeology related pages. If you can, I was wondering if you could spare a bit of time to help me with some general editing / maintaining tips. thanks.

NotinREALITY 00:50, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Hello NotinREALITY, and welcome to Wikipedia. I would be happy to help you learn about Wikipedia. Is there anything in particular I can help you with at the moment? Alpha_Quadrant    (talk)    01:43, 3 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for a quick response. I am generally interested in maintaining an article. so info on reliable sources, references and generally easy to read formatting would be wonderful. thanks alpha quadrant.

NotinREALITY 07:44, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The guidelines Identifying reliable sources should help you understand what is, and isn't considered reliable. Referencing for Beginners explain how to format citations, and also tells you how to use the tags. Manual of Style/Layout explains how articles should be organized. I hope that helps you. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask. I would be more than happy to help. Alpha_Quadrant    (talk)    15:17, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks so much for this :D — Preceding unsigned comment added by NotinREALITY (talk • contribs) 11:12, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Joostschouten/Yanomo declined per SPEEDY
Hi and thank you for your review. I was hoping you could help me with the reason for declining the article for creation. The document SPEEDY states "This criterion applies only to articles about web content and to articles about people, organizations, and individual animals themselves, not to articles about their books, albums, software, or other creative works." Since The article is about software, am I correct to assume this reason should not apply to my submission?

I have also made some edits to indicate the significance of the "Team sourcing" feature Yanomo introduces. I look forward to your response. Joostschouten (talk) 10:30, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The article appears to be about an online tool. Even if the article doesn't meet the CSD criteria, the article can still be deleted if it fails the notability guidelines. Because it is about a online tool, it would need to meet the notability guidelines for web content. At present, it doesn't appear that the subject meets the guidelines. If the subject has won any major awards, or if several reliable third party sources (such as newspapers, magazines, or books) have covered the subject, then it would meet the guidelines.  Alpha_Quadrant    (talk)    15:17, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks For Helping!

 * No problem. Glad to help. Alpha_Quadrant    (talk)    17:40, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Two issues, AFC template changes
There are some issues with the implementation of the new draft template's timer. First, unless I'm mistaken, as currently implemented, when a month rolls over, every template from the last month is probably going to trigger, because the month digit will increase, as 1031xxxxxxx <= 1101xxxxxxx - 7000000. Then, when it does trigger, and they enter the pending queue, the AFC Helper tool wont recognize the tag. Finally, on the articles submitted for review after starting as a draft, the submitters are adding an additional /submit template, but are not removing the draft template. When the article is reviewed, the /submitted template will bear a rejection notice, but the draft template will remain, and then submit the article for review in a week, per the timer. Also, as an aside, the edit filter was blocking attempts to submit drafts for awhile, but I think I got that sorted out with an admin. edit filter log Monty  845  06:19, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

JJ Ingalls article
I read through the criteria for notability. How about having been in the ancestral tree of frontier girl Laura Ingalls Wilder? Her autobiography, "Little House in the Big Woods," was the basis for the Little House books and Michael Landon's popular TV series, "Little House on the Prairie." JJ Ingalls was related to Laura Ingalls. Added to his special nature of being genetically impacted and small physically, his attitude and characteristics towards life and being an inspiration to thers should be sufficient enough to put him down as a notable person, no? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grungestar (talk • contribs) 23:59, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The person would still need to meet the notability guidelines for biographies. Being genetically related to a famous person does not inherently make that person notable. The person in the article needs to have significant coverage in reliable sources. I don't believe there is enough coverage for a separate entry. However, you might consider adding the information to the Little House in the Big Woods article. Alpha_Quadrant    (talk)    03:07, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Star Trek Move :)
While I realize there is a problem with too many books about Star Trek being overly reverent, I still suspect that you meant to move the "See also" section above the "reference" section, rather than the "reverence" section as you stated in your edit-summary. :) --WickerGuy (talk) 03:26, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Ha, yes, that was a typo. A very funny typo at that :). On that note, what Star Trek fan wouldn't regard the Star Trek reference section with reverence :). Thanks for pointing out my error. Best wishes,  Alpha_Quadrant    (talk)    03:55, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Adoption candidate
Hello Alpha, I'm helping new user user:Stephfo find a mentor. I'm writing you because at the present time he's blocked. If you could take him under your wing that would be great! TTFN – Lionel (talk) 04:45, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure, I'll leave a message on his talk page. Alpha_Quadrant    (talk)    15:50, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Vas J Morgan
I can't believe anyone put a rescue template on that awful article. That's the kind of thing that gives the ARS a bad name--and I'm puzzled, since I see you all over the place and you often make a lot of sense. Why this article? I hope you're related to the subject, since I can't see any other reason. Best, Drmies (talk) 23:18, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I added the rescue tag in hope that someone would be able to fix it. I had done a search, and the four reliable sources in the article were the only things that came up. That's the purpose of the ARS, to fix potentially notable articles. If the article doesn't meet the notability guidelines, even after a rescue attempt, so be it. I have been watching the deletion discussion, and it appears that the consensus is that the topic doesn't have significant coverage in reliable third party sources. I had originally accepted this revision through Article for Creation, as the information in the submission was cited by three reliable sources. I have changed my !vote in the AfD to delete. Best, Alpha_Quadrant    (talk)    23:44, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Alpha, I'm sorry. I could have said that a lot nicer, or kept it to myself--but man I hate that kind of socialite look at me i'm famous spam. I know you didn't write the article, and I should appreciate your effort to try and make something out of nothing. Keep on making sense, and please accept my apologies. I should log off and have dinner. Drmies (talk) 23:51, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem, I am not offended by the above. Enjoy your dinner. Best wishes, Alpha_Quadrant    (talk)    23:55, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Duran Bell
This AFD did not qualify as a "Speedy Keep". It has only been alive for 1 day before Colonel Warden invalidly closed it that way, and it meets none of the criteria for speedy keep. I have accordingly reopened it.&mdash;Kww(talk) 11:10, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It appears that Colonel Warden speedy closed the debate on the 3rd after three other users had !voted keep, and you reopened the debate on the 8th. Another user commented in the debate, !voting keep. If you take a look, the nominator sent about eight articles to AfD, articles that clearly met WP:PROF, but the articles themselves lacked reliable third party sources, and other editors commented on this fact. The other debates started by this editor were opened for a full 7 days, and they didn't have consensus for deletion either. Hence why I closed the debate as keep. Because you had already reopened the debate once, you were involved in the debate. If you disagreed with my decision, it would have been more appropriate for you to ask another uninvolved administrator to review my closure, rather than reopening it yourself. Alpha_Quadrant    (talk)    17:17, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You did not close the AFD as "keep", you closed it as "speedy keep". Speedy Keep of a page in mainspace is only appropriate when the original nominator withdraws the nomination, or the original "nomination was unquestionably vandalism or disruption". Neither of those conditions is met. Don't use "speedy keep" to mean that you think it is obvious the article will be kept. That's not what speedy keep means. Your close of the AFD was improper, and my reopening the debate was quite legitimate, as I have expressed no opinion on the AFD or the article, and haven't edited either one except to eliminate Colonel Warden's original improper handling. I agree the article will very likely be kept, and am not entering an argument to delete it. If you don't take the time to learn what the various kinds of closes mean and handle them correctly, please don't close any more AFDs.&mdash;Kww(talk) 23:34, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You are correct, I closed it as a "speedy keep" instead of a keep. Apologies, Alpha_Quadrant    (talk)    14:30, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Kww, would you take a look at User talk:Mkativerata? Cunard (talk) 23:44, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * My feelings echo Mkativerata's: relisting this was probably a bad idea, but not so unambiguously bad as to warrant reversion. If no one comes up with a valid keep argument in the next few days, I'll delete the article.&mdash;Kww(talk) 23:57, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for taking a look. I think that the AfD can be closed now without manually reverting the relist but will respect your judgment about what to do. Cunard (talk) 00:04, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Non-administrative closure
As I recall, the policy says if I object to a non-administrative closure, I should first raise the issue with the closing editor. Essentially, I think after only two !votes, a better course of action would be to relist the debate. Thanks. (You don't need to go to the trouble to leave a TB on my Talk page - I'll watch here for your response.)--Bbb23 (talk) 15:16, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I see your point, I have reverted my closure and relisted the debate. Consensus could be clearer here. Best, Alpha_Quadrant    (talk)    17:17, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks much, I don't know what the eventual outcome will be, but hopefully we'll get additional opinions from more editors.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:23, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Caiyad Phahad
When AfD discussions have had substantial debate, they are not relisted unless there was a procedural issue or a deficiency in the discussion. When relisting such debates, editors should explain why they are relisting them. Would you append a rationale to your relisting of Articles for deletion/Caiyad Phahad on the AfD pages, so that the participants understand why the discussion was deficient? Cunard (talk) 20:59, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:RELIST for the purpose of relisting a discussion. Currently there is two users (you and the nom) arguing deletion, one arguing userfying, and one arguing keep. That is by no means clear consensus. That is why we relist discussions, to establish a clearer consensus. Alpha_Quadrant    (talk)    21:13, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * There are three users arguing for deletion. Because six users have participated in the debate, there has been substantial discussion. WP:RELIST states (among other things): "However, if at the end of the initial seven-day period, the discussion has only a few participants (including the nominator), and/or it seems to be lacking arguments based on policy, it may be appropriate for the closer to relist it, to solicit further discussion to determine consensus." For the first clause, I do not consider six participants to be few. For the second, I believe that policy-based arguments have been advanced regarding the notability of the subject and whether the page should userfied. It is time for the consensus to be assessed. Please undo your relist. Cunard (talk) 21:18, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment, in the event that you failed to notice my reply because of the intervening edits of . Cunard (talk) 21:48, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You have reviewed several AfC creations since 21:18, 9 October 2011 (UTC), the time I posted my above message. I will revert your relist if you intend to ignore my messages. Cunard (talk) 22:07, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Such an action would be inappropriate, as you are involved in the discussion. The debate is relisted so that a clear consensus can be established. Two keep !votes, one userfy vote, and one keep vote is not clear consensus. It doesn't matter if there are 6 participants, or 60. Discussions that have unclear consensus can be relisted. Alpha_Quadrant    (talk)    22:17, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for finally replying. "Two keep !votes, one userfy vote, and one keep vote" – there are three delete votes, one userfy, and one keep. It doesn't matter if there are 6 participants, or 60. Discussions that have unclear consensus can be relisted. – You have a fundamental misunderstanding of WP:RELIST. WP:RELIST states: "[R]elisting should not be a substitute for a 'no consensus' closure. If the closer feels there has been substantive debate, disparate opinions supported by policy have been expressed, and consensus has not been achieved, a no-consensus close may be preferable." Even if there had been no consensus, your relist would have been wrong. Your counting of the votes does not take into account the strength of the votes' arguments. I believe that consensus has been achieved. You have failed to demonstrate that your relist meets the above criteria I quoted from the WP:RELIST. Please undo your inappropriate relist. Cunard (talk) 22:29, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi AQ. There is a discussion on my talk page about this relist. Perhaps you may find in that discussion that there are reasons why re-listing discussions like this can be damaging and why it is best to avoid re-listing a discussion until it has fallen off the seven day log. I'd join Cunard in asking that you consider relisting this one; had I noticed it without having been asked to look at it I probably would have reverted it myself. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:31, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Gregori_M._Kurtzman,_DDS,_MAGD,_FPFA,_FADI,_DICOI,_DADIA
Regarding http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Gregori_M._Kurtzman,_DDS,_MAGD,_FPFA,_FADI,_DICOI,_DADIA

Here are 3rd party sources to verify. Should you need additional sources please let me know and if you can be specific in what is needed. Thank you.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Drimplants (talk • contribs) 21:13, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Many of those sources appear to be first party sources. Can you please add reliable third party sources, particularly news sources. The sources do not need to be online. They can be books, magazines, newspaper articles, or online news articles. For details, please see VRS. Thank you, Alpha_Quadrant    (talk)    21:25, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Early AfD closures
You closed Articles for deletion/Sara Carbonero over three days early; Articles for deletion/Runt Marr nearly two days early; Articles for deletion/New Zealand's Top 100 History Makers, Articles for deletion/Největší Čech, Articles for deletion/Suuret suomalaiset, Articles for deletion/Os Grandes Portugueses, Articles for deletion/Greatest Croatian, Articles for deletion/De Grootste Nederlander, and several other discussions a day early.

Given 's discussion with you yesterday above, why have you speedily closed these discussions and not let them run for the full listing period? Cunard (talk) 03:58, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * If you look, I speedy closed the above debate that Kww highlights. Speedy closing was inappropriate in that case (yes, I made a mistake here), however, if I had done an early close it would have been appropriate. Yes, early closes are not in a given guideline, and therefore can be controversial, but they are not forbidden. If you look, I am not the only editor who makes early keep closures. By the way, now that other users have commented after my relisting in Articles for deletion/Caiyad Phahad, it would be inappropriate for me to revert my relisting, so please stop asking me to do that. Alpha_Quadrant    (talk)    04:18, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Please do not close debates early because as you note, they can be "controversial". There is no harm to leave them open until the full 168-hour listing period has passed. Regarding the AfD, Mkativerata asked you at 23:31, 9 October 2011 (UTC) to undo your relist, and I asked you at 01:36, 10 October 2011 (UTC) to undo your relist. There were no further comments at Articles for deletion/Caiyad Phahad until 15:43, 10 October 2011 (UTC). You dealt with a number of AfCs in that intervening time period. I opened this thread not to convince you to undo your relist (I did not mention it, knowing it was futile because you ignored the requests of myself, Mkativerata, and S Marshall yesterday) but to ask you not to close discussions early. Cunard (talk) 04:34, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * No where in policy does it say that non-admins can't close clear consensus discussions early. If someone protests the early closure, then we reopen it. If you take a look, the discussions I closed today were clearly non-controversial. Alpha_Quadrant    (talk)    04:38, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * And for the record, I also closed an AfD debate 6 days early. Alpha_Quadrant    (talk)    04:43, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Withdrawal by nominator falls under WP:Speedy keep Criterion 1. Flatscan (talk) 04:54, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Neither admins nor non-admins should close discussions early unless there is a good reason for doing so. One, when a non-admin or admin closes a discussion earlier, he or she introduces a procedural irregularity that can make the nominator feel that s/he has not received FairProcess. Second, an early close could cause the discussion to be overturned at deletion review. Third, early closes encourage others to close earlier and earlier. I ask you not to close discussions early if the nominator has not withdrawn and if the participants are not unanimous. Cunard (talk) 04:48, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 1)Fair process? Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. 2) That is what deletion review is for. 3) Like I said, editors already make early closures, some of them the day they are opened. Policy doesn't support your arguments. You can't go around "requesting" that editors only edit the way you want them to, and then harassing them if they don't. That is not how Wikipedia works. Alpha_Quadrant    (talk)    04:55, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi, Alpha Quadrant! Cunard has asked me on my talk page to speak with you about this, so I'll try to help clear this up. "FairProcess" is a meme from meatball wiki, which is a wiki about wikis; it's about making sure our processes are fair.  AfD is the process in question, and the reason why early closures can sometimes make the process unfair is if the early closure stops a user from having a voice in a discussion when they might reasonably have expected one.  If you're interested, you can read more about the thoughts behind FairProcess here.  Of course, that shouldn't stop you from withdrawing your own nominations as in one of the examples on this page.  The important point is that there is a strong community consensus that an AfD should only be closed after 168 hours.  Would it be helpful if I linked the discussion for you where this was agreed? You will, of course, see editors disregarding that rule.  Like all rules there are times when that is appropriate; Cunard's concern, and mine, is that your perception of when it's appropriate and ours are significantly at variance. I know you think Cunard is harassing you, but I respectfully ask you to reconsider that view.  Cunard is a rather respected and trusted editor who has absolutely no history of harassing anyone, and I think the reason he is repeating his requests is in an attempt to avoid more difficult and formal processes in future.  You don't have to listen to him, or indeed to me, but I do respectfully ask you to think about what Cunard says most carefully.— S Marshall  T/C 11:24, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * @ S Marshall, I found the discussion regarding the deletion process changes, and it appears it discussed changing the time from 5 to 7 days, as well as early closures. The discussion didn't appear to have a strong consensus to only close after 168 hours, (for deletion, yes, but for keep/redirect/merge there was actually quite a few editors in favor of early closures.) I see your point on early relisting discussions, I erred in relisting early the other day, and the debate that Kww pointed out was incorrectly closed by me. However, early closures do happen. Currently on the Articles for deletion/Log/2011 October 7, there are several early closures (both delete and keep) where the discussion hasn't been listed for a full seven days. If there is a specific problem with one of the closures I made yesterday, I would be willing to listen.


 * @Cunard re, I didn't appreciate your threats to unilaterally overrule my relist if I didn't reply to you right then and there. I didn't appreciate your "hurry up and reply" comments either. Just because I had the audacity to go back to reviewing AfC submissions, and taking a break from the discussion, rather than replying to your comments right away. I replied a mere 40 minutes after your first comment, it hadn't been 20 minutes after your comment before you started demanding I reply. I didn't mind you asking for third party input, I had a problem with you asking 3 different editors to overturn my decision, after the previous editor you asked already declined your request. Then you stated that "maybe one of the 109 talk page stalkers will do it". Then you go on threatening to open a Request for Comment if I "continued to make poor decisions". Yes, I erred the other day, however, how have I erred in the closures you linked in this discussion? Early closures are no where prohibited. Also, you canvassed at  for opinions on whether or not the article should be userfied. You did not inform the other users who commented in the debate (partisan canvassing), you only informed the editors that agreed with you. Then, after you canvassed, you came here to criticize the fact that I made early closures, citing a discussion I had with Kww about an incorrect speedy closure, a discussion that should have been an early closure.  Alpha_Quadrant    (talk)    15:41, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I will leave the discussion about early closures in S Marshall's capable hands. If a reasonable request to undo an improper relist is ignored, I have no choice but to undo it. By "taking a break from the discussion", you kept me waiting forty minutes for a response. Had real life beckoned you and you logged off, I would have understood. However, you continued editing AfCs, giving the impression that my message was of no import and that you did not intend to reply. You wrote above: "now that other users have commented after my relisting in Articles for deletion/Caiyad Phahad, it would be inappropriate for me to revert my relisting, so please stop asking me to do that". At the time, both you and I knew that if more users commented, their actions would bar an undo of the relist. A resolution to the contested relist therefore required a degree of promptness. Since you were active and continued editing, I expected my request to be responded to in a timely manner. Had you continued to ignore my request, I would have undone your relist as being incorrect and unjustified. I don't consider a promise to undo an unjustified action to be harassment, but you are entitled to your opinion. At 22:32, 9 October 2011 (UTC), I asked for an uninvolved opinion about your relist. He responded at 22:44, 9 October 2011 (UTC), stating that he disagreed with the relist. S Marshall joined the discussion, noting that he disagreed with several of your relists and overturned four. When I asked Mkativerata and S Marshall to reverse your relist, Mkativerata replied that he was unable to act because he had been contacted on his talk page. He then wrote: "Of course the other possibility is that a TPS, if I have any, might be inclined to consider acting." This suggestion prompted me to propose that one of Mkativerata's 109 talk page watchers reverse the inappropriate relist. S Marshall declined to undo the relist, writing: "Cunard, normally I would be delighted to do exactly as you ask. However, I'm concerned that I've unilaterally overruled Alpha Quadrant four times today already, and if I did it any more, I might appear to be victimising him. I feel that I need to back off now. (I don't normally stalk Mkativerata's talk page, but I just happened to have talked to him directly above. So there are 109 others!)" S Marshall then suggested that  to review the discussion. I replied: "It's unfortunate that none of us can revert this inappropriate relist. If Alpha Quadrant continues to make poor decisions (like the four times you've overruled Alpha Quadrant, which I endorse) and does not heed editors' suggestions, perhaps an RfC/U will be necessary. Also note the ongoing discussion here with." Two minutes later, I asked Kww, who had warned you 10 minutes prior, to review the discussion so the relist could be reversed. Kww agreed that the relist was inappropriate, writing: "relisting this was probably a bad idea, but not so unambiguously bad as to warrant reversion". I note that you were away for an hour during the discussion among myself, Mkativerata, and S Marshall. However, this chain of events and this wasting of four editors' time could have been spared had you reversed your relist after my 21:18, 9 October 2011 (UTC) request: "There are three users arguing for deletion. Because five users have participated in the debate, there has been substantial discussion. WP:RELIST states (among other things): However, if at the end of the initial seven-day period, the discussion has only a few participants (including the nominator), and/or it seems to be lacking arguments based on policy, it may be appropriate for the closer to relist it, to solicit further discussion to determine consensus." For the first clause, I do not consider five participants to be few. For the second, I believe that policy-based arguments have been advanced regarding the notability of the subject and whether the page should userfied. Please undo your relist. You did not and were unable to justify your relist per the guideline at WP:RELIST, so after my comment at 21:18, 9 October 2011 (UTC), I thought you would re-review the guideline and undo your relist, but you did not. Regarding your comment here for which you've been given a barnstar: When I see copyright violations or erroneous relists or perceive other policy- or guideline-violating edits, I notify the users about their mistakes whether I am involved or uninvolved (see User talk:The Bushranger). I operate under the good faith assumption that the other user will either explain why I am wrong or acknowledge and rectify his or her actions. My recent editing of articles has been curtailed because I do not wish to start or continue another project until Featured article candidates/Middlesex (novel)/archive1 for Middlesex (novel) is over. Due to the lack of full reviews, I believe that it will be archived within the next few days. My GA nomination for Shiloh (novel) has been open for over a month. That I am not currently doing article work has no bearing on how much article work I have done and will continue to do. All my recent edits that you consider harassment revolved around your problematic AfD involvement and Articles for deletion/Caiyad Phahad. Regarding the canvassing allegation: Had the users I notified not been involved in the discussion, it would have been canvassing. My request was directed to the "delete" participants, not the "keeps". The "keeps"'s opinions are known because they indicate that they wish the article to be retained on Wikipedia in some form (such as userfication). For the "deletes", it could be unclear for the closing admin. I asked the "delete" participants to clarify whether they supported deleting from the mainspace and deleting from the userspace so that the closing admin would not have to judge consensus based on my opinion and the opinions of the "keeps". I dispute that I have canvassed but acknowledge that my edits could be construed as improper. Keeping your suggestion in mind, I will notify all in the future. Articles for deletion/Caiyad Phahad has now been closed. I reviewed the chronology of my actions related to your relist and the AfD so you can see my thought process when I was ignored and felt powerless to have the poor relist reversed. The core issues here entail a lack of communication and an unwillingness to listen to other editors' suggestions. I hope that S Marshall will help you understand why AfDs should, unless there is an appropriate reason, run the full 168 hours. I agree with S Marshall's statement that both he and I wish to "avoid more difficult and formal processes" in the future. Cunard (talk) 22:46, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Cunard, AfDs can and should sometimes be closed early. Sometimes they should be speedy closed. Insisting that all AfDs run 168 hours is a complete non-starter, and is not mandated by policy, nor should it be. I've reviewed all the AfDs you cited in the beginning of this thread. All of the closures were appropriate. Complaining about when they closed is a non-starter; the result was blatant in each case. The rest of this is of little consequence. Hell, at AfDs for Oct. 10 fully 10% of the AfDs there have already been closed. Almost 20% of October 9's are closed early, and etc. This 'problem' isn't isolated to AQ. If you have an issue with AfDs being closed early, I strongly suggest you take the issue up at WT:AFD. The change you are seeking to see happen isn't going to occur by lobbying AQ to change his ways. Even if he agreed with you (and he shouldn't), there'd still be a ton of people closing AfDs early. In short, you're barking up the wrong tree. Go lobby WT:AFD. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:49, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The assertion that a 168-hour rule is not mandated by policy is demonstrably false. Deletion policy states: "The discussion lasts at least seven full days; afterwards, pages are deleted by an administrator if there is consensus to do so." Snow closures are exceptions to the rule, and none of the above AfDs are unambiguously snow closures. There have been numerous discussions about editors' closing early and refusing to abide by policy. Early closures were discussed at Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy/Archive 40, Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Archive 51, and Administrators' noticeboard/Archive217. The main problems with early closes are that they (i) don't provide FairProcess to the nominator; (ii) introduce a procedural irregularity that could lead to an overturn at DRV; (iii) fail to let accommodate people who are not daily contributors; and (iv) prevent users who abide by the 168-hour rule from closing discussions. On the last point, DGG wrote: "I want to reiterate the reason for the rule: 7 days can shrink to 6 very easily--someone above seems to have said 16 hours is not too soon, but that's 2/3 of a full day. If someone argues why does it matter with a unanimous AfD, it will soon be why does it matter after two or three people have spoken, no matter how soon it is. We cannot tell it is unanimous until the end. And in order to get a reasonable spectrum of views, we need to accommodate those who do not contribute every day the way many of those in the discussion do. I have seen many AfDs changed or reversed by contributions made in the final hours.' ...here's the problem: 6 days 23 hours ... 6 days 22 hours .... 6 days 12 hours .... 6 days 1 hours.... 6 days 5 minutes.... This is one of the times when a clean cutoff rule is necessary." Early AfD closes should be seldom occurrences, not regularities. Multiple threads have been raised about this issue at various forums: WT:AFD, WT:DP, and WP:ANI. I do not wish to raise another one. If you or Alpha Quadrant would like to change the deletion policy to permit early closes, you are free to start a discussion to do so. But until the deletion policy is changed, I ask that the 168-hour rule is respected. Cunard (talk) 23:35, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, so now we are back to "the discussions above were closed incorrectly" (When one argument is failing we switch back to the other?). You know, that's funny, none of the above linked discussions had clear consensus again early closures. And the policy you quoted makes the exception for early closures in the last sentence. Like Hammersoft said, if you have a problem with early closures, start a discussion at WT:AFD. I am not going to stop making early non-controversial closures just because you told me I shouldn't. There is no policy prohibiting me from doing so, and your claims that there is are incorrect. If clear consensus is established, I will of course abide by that, but I am not going to permit you to try and establish that consensus on this talk page. It is not the right place to do so. Early closures are made often, your statement that they aren't is completely without evidence. So unless you and Spartaz have another issue with me, I suggest you get back to that featured article nominee and stop wasting my time. Alpha_Quadrant    (talk)  02:02, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * @Cunard; Please read #1 of AFD. You're quite wrong. But, even if I'm wrong and you're right, tell me...why is it sooooo many people on the AfD pages are making early closures, and why is you're harping on AQ and not on all of them too? Hmm? --Hammersoft (talk) 02:23, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Review of daily logs
I used the table of contents section count for the number of AfDs. There was a malformed AfD with bad section headings on the October 10 log that I fixed. Flatscan (talk) 04:57, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

2011 October 7, 90 sections


 * 1) White Aethiopians: speedy keep, withdrawn
 * 2) Gallery of named graphs: SNOW keep
 * 3) Gallery of sovereign-state flags:  SNOW keep
 * 4) L'Ordine Nuovo: withdrawn (closed as SNOW keep)
 * 5) Generation R: speedy delete G12 copyvio
 * 6) Tom Kotchman: keep; see Matt Harrington in the October 10 list
 * 7) Richard Klaus: delete; closed after 6.5 days on October 13

2011 October 8, 97 sections


 * 1) Robin Michael Smith: speedy delete G7, author blanked
 * 2) Vladan Vujic: speedy delete G3 hoax
 * 3) Elm house murders: SNOW delete
 * 4) Northern Kentucky UIFL team (2012): speedy delete R3
 * 5) Zachary Stone: keep, 1 relist
 * 6) Mount Manisty: keep, 1 relist
 * 7) AeroUnion Flight 302: keep, 1 relist
 * 8) Pol Goossen: keep, 1 relist
 * 9) Kolluru Krishan: no consensus, 3 relists
 * 10) SoWink: speedy delete G11; A7 declined by IP user
 * 11) Emily James (Waterloo Road): procedural close, referred to group AfD
 * 12) Lindsay James: procedural close, referred to group AfD
 * 13) The Off-Beats: redirect, 1 relist

2011 October 9, 105 sections


 * 1) Machine design in game engines: userfied; WP:India Education Program student project
 * 2) CERN Neutrinos to Gran Sasso: keep, withdrawn
 * 3) Caiyad Phahad: delete, 1 relist
 * 4) Matt Harrington: speedy keep, "bad-faith nomination"
 * 5) Tony Podesta: speedy keep, malformed (blank) nomination
 * 6) Digital storage oscilloscope: speedy keep
 * 7) Paraglider: speedy redirect, disruption
 * 8) Dragons versus Dinosaurs: speedy delete G7, author blanked
 * 9) Xtoriez: speedy delete G7, author blanked
 * 10) The Risky Business: redirect, 1 relist
 * 11) Alin Goia: delete all, 1 relist
 * 12) Sony Ericsson K770: procedural keep, refer image to WP:Files for deletion
 * 13) IOS version history: SNOW keep
 * 14) Clondalkin RFC: keep, 1 relist
 * 15) Balbriggan RFC: keep, 1 relist
 * 16) Dublin City University RFC: keep, 1 relist
 * 17) POCOS project: delete, 1 relist
 * 18) NEU Innovation and Information Technologies Center: redirect, 2 relists
 * 19) For the Movies: delete, 2 relists
 * 20) Mermaid Man and Barnacle Boy series: delete, 1 relist
 * 21) Endless Night Vampire Ball: delete, 1 relist

2011 October 10, 87 sections


 * 1) Gavrilo Princip: speedy keep, disruption
 * 2) 9/11 THE WAR AGAINST ISLAM: speedy delete G3 vandalism
 * 3) Los Guerreros: withdrawn
 * 4) Episode Six: withdrawn
 * 5) Buysubzi: speedy delete G7, author blanked
 * 6) Davey Winder: withdrawn
 * 7) Samurai Invest: speedy delete A7, G11
 * 8) SilverBuildIT: speedy delete A7, G11
 * 9) Jackie Clarkson: keep, WP:POLITICIAN met
 * 10) The Oaktree Foundation: keep, 1 relist

The majority of these are speedy keeps (including withdrawals), speedy deletes, or relisted AfDs. I've highlighted specific AfDs with bold and italics. Flatscan (talk) 04:57, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The close of the India Education Program related AfD was mine. That one seemed best speedily userfied and closed as the AfD wasn't going to help. Discussion was already taking place (and continues) at Wikipedia talk:Ambassadors and Wikipedia talk:India Education Program. --Tothwolf (talk) 06:26, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

168 hours
To supplement the discussions linked above, I searched the WT:Articles for deletion archives for 168.


 * WT:Articles for deletion/Archive 43, October 2007
 * WT:Articles for deletion/Archive 52, March–April 2009
 * WT:Articles for deletion/Archive 53, April–May 2009
 * WT:Articles for deletion/Archive 60, December 2010
 * WT:Articles for deletion/Archive 61, February 2011
 * WT:Articles for deletion/Archive 62, July–August 2011

Aside from the formal 7 days proposal in 2009, these discussions have been brief. that the was unilateral and undiscussed is accurate, as far as I can tell. The inserting editor's (User:WhatamIdoing) comments in the two 2011 discussions indicate concern with nitpicking AfDs closed early or late by a few hours or minutes. Flatscan (talk) 04:48, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Clear Warning
I have been watching this trainwreck of a thread with utter dismay and feel I have to chip in. If you close AFDs you are acting in an administrative capacity and must respond to requests and queries with respect and courtesy. If someone calls you on a policy violation you have to address it seriously. You cannot close AFDs early unless its clearly snowing - and as a non admin any AFD closes are subject to summary voiding by an admin if they feel that the close was wrong or controversial. So, lets be very clear, you have a bad attitude and are refusing to respond to reasonable requests to stick to community expectations for closing AFDs. If this continues I'm going to undo your closes and, if you carry on after that, I will eventually block you for disruption. Finally, accusing editors raising reasonable concerns of harassment and stalking has a chilling effect and is effectively casting unfounded aspersions. That isn't acceptable. Consider this a final warning. If I feel you have been making unfounded allegations of harassment or stalking again then I will reach for the block button with no further warning. I trust this message is clear. Spartaz Humbug! 02:02, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * All of these were blatant keeps. I fail to see any error on the part of AQ in closing these as keeps. There is no prohibition on non-admins making keep closures. AQ was being hounded by an editor about supposedly inappropriate closures...that weren't inappropriate. You want to pop the block button on him? Fine. But, you had better have a damn good basis for doing so. This ain't it. Not even close. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:10, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The issue is the timing and the attitude not the outcome... Do try to keep up. Spartaz Humbug! 15:35, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * ...so.....now it's the timing? I thought this discussion was about the alleged incorrect closures I made above. And what attitude? Cunard and I have gotten into a dispute, and you are telling me that I have a bad attitude? He started a discussion about something that wasn't even a problem (the closures I made were non-controversial), and you are telling me that isn't considered harassment. Yes, I messed up a few days ago at AfD, but Kww pointed out my mistake. Have I repeated it since then? Alpha Quadrant (talk) 16:04, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * @Spartaz; Do try to keep up? Well, you know I'm a certified idiot. But, if you'll forgive my stupidity, I see a lot of kerfluffle over some blatantly appropriate early closures followed by a final warning. And this is block worthy? How? --Hammersoft (talk) 16:25, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Newspaper vending machine
Materialscientist (talk) 12:02, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Bravo on spotting that we didn't have an article on such a basic topic. Proving WP:NOTDONE yet again. ;) Steven Walling &bull; talk   20:20, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I too was quite surprised to see that we lacked such a basic topic. Best wishes, Alpha_Quadrant    (talk)    21:00, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Article review
please can u explain to me how did u manage to review this in less then 5 seconds? — Preceding unsigned comment added by From earth (talk • contribs) 17:42, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 5 seconds? I spent two minutes reviewing the article. It lacked reliable third party sources and therefore met the quick fail criteria. Alpha_Quadrant    (talk)    17:45, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Retirement
Why are you retiring?!?!?!? --Hammersoft (talk) 14:57, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * See two threads up, what can I do, I messed up. I am not welcome here anymore. Alpha Quadrant (talk) 14:58, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't vanish just yet. Give me a chance to read :) Hang on. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:59, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I posted above. The threat to block is out of line. The keep closures were entirely appropriate, and the complaints about them rising to the status of final warning is absurd. Don't let something like this end your editing here. I've come under attack from people here God knows how many times. I can't remember 99% of them. They're meaningless white static noise in the background of productive editing. Hell, you and I locked horns in the past, and I forgot that! I only found it by looking deep into the history of this talk page, because I did remember we had interacted before but couldn't remember about what. Forget about it. Move on. And, if people come after you with pitchforks over early closures again, I've got your back. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:15, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your kind words Hammersoft. Given that I was quite rude to you when I first started editing, seeing your name in the new messages window was quite surprising. You are the editor who got me on the right track with policy, and for that I have a great respect for you opinion. If you feel I shouldn't leave over this, I'll take your advice. Alpha Quadrant (talk) 15:32, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * And just to be clear, yes I don't think you should be leaving over this. :) --Hammersoft (talk) 20:00, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Alpha Quadrant, no one is suggesting that you should leave or that you are unwelcome. It may be best for you to take a break from the deletion boards, especially from early-closing XfDs, but that really is a very, very tiny portion of what there is to do around Wikipedia. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:29, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I've deleted your pages as requested, if you want them back drop me a line.  Alexandria  (Ni!)  15:40, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 *  Alpha, seriously, you don't have to retire. I've seen you work in a dozen other places, AFC comes to might straight away, being that that's the place I met you. If you don't feel comfortable in one area, or your being there stirs up too much conflict, drop it and do work elsewhere. I'm not blowing hot air at you; I went from being a Featured Sounds director to leaving Featured Sounds altogether because I just wasn't comfortable with the amount of conflict it brought into my life. If you enjoy Wikipedia overall, there are plenty of other things worth doing. I hope to see you around, come back in a few days and work at AFC or ACC or whatever.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  16:36, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I hope you reconsider, your a very valuable contributor and I'd hate to see you retire. Frankly I think the deletion stuff is much adieu about nothing, per Hammersoft. Monty 845  16:49, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * AQ, I would have expected you to have thicker skin than this, especially given your vociferous presence on WP. If you stay, I encourage you to read some real-world advice for folks engaging in quasi-administrative activities - especially the first section. Administrative work (and quasi-adminstrative work) comes under a great deal of scrutiny.  I know you've participated in that.  It cuts both ways.  Toddst1 (talk) 17:32, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I have a fairly thick skin. Other editors can think what they want, but I didn't retire to cause drama, I retired to get away from drama and hostility, I quite frankly hate it. And I would have been quite fine with continuing the discussion with Cunard. The last comment by Cunard combined with the "final warning" Spartaz gave me made me consider retiring. His comment added hostility to an already heated argument. He gave a very similar message a day earlier to a now blocked user, causing me to reconsider my usefulness to the project. After Hammersoft's comment, I clearly see that it was a poor reason to retire. I have no intention to let that kind of attitude get to me again. Best, Alpha Quadrant (talk) 19:25, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

By the way, if you want to see an excellent example of what I was talking about above, see this thread, which resulted in this thread. Note: I am NOT asking you to weigh in on the subject. I am not canvassing you, so please don't post to either. I just want to highlight it as an example of bad situations that you just have to let roll off your back. Staying cool when the editing gets hot. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:59, 12 October 2011 (UTC)