User talk:Quarl/Archive 2006-12

User:Nicer1 / User:Chidom
Please could you take a look at this and let me have your view. Thank you very much. --SandyDancer 12:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC) A Checkuser will not help distinguish this one way or the other, correct?
 * Actually, the discussion there has been archived, so I can't continue it there. Anyway, I'm a relatively new admin, and can't find any specific directive about the spouse situation on WP:SOCK. Let me ask a presumably more experienced admin for advice. The two possibilities seem to be either:
 * 1) as Chidom claims, Nicer1 and he are two distinct individuals who live in the same place, and use the same Internet connection
 * 2) as SandyDancer hypothesizes, Chidom and Nicer1 are the same person.
 * 1) as SandyDancer hypothesizes, Chidom and Nicer1 are the same person.

However, this important sentence from Suspected sock puppets: "1. An alternate account that is not used for abuse does not warrant a complaint." I asked about this on the Suspected_sock_puppets/Chidom, and SandyDancer hasn't responded as to what his contention of abuse is. The complaint seems to be "the account is a sock ... registered to avoid the scrutiny of the community for his or her actions." but that's not a technical problem under WP:SOCK, in fact WP:SOCK says: "Some editors use different accounts in talk pages to avoid conflicts about a particular area of interest turning into conflicts based upon user identity and personal attacks elsewhere". He doesn't seem to like Nicer1's placing prod's on uncited articles, but that is hardly abuse. There doesn't seem to be any claim that Chidom and Nicer1 ever edited the same area, which is the main area of concern under WP:SOCK.

I would tend to believe Chidom, mostly due to my experience with him - he has been a dedicated WP:P* editor, probably our best editor of gay articles. But even if SandyDancer were right, and this were just a split personality of the same person, that would be OK per Sock puppetry: "A user making substantial contributions to an area of interest in Wikipedia might register another account to be used solely in connection with developing that area." Chidom's main area of interest is gay pornography; Nicer1's main area of interest isn't; they've never edited the same article or contributed to the same debate.

So, three questions:
 * 1) Given the checkuser won't tell us anything in dispute, should it be run?
 * 2) Given there is no allegation of abuse, should Suspected_sock_puppets/Chidom be closed?
 * 3) Hypothetically, if Chidom were telling the truth, and he and another person use the same internet connection, what should they do about it, to stop the problem from coming up again?

Thank you, AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * If my suspicion that Chidom and Nicer1 are the same user, then the statement on Nicer1's userpage was untrue and was placed there in bad faith. That casts the actions of the Nicer1 account in a bad light, and I believe we could then say the account was created to avoid community scrutiny for bad faith deletion nominations. --SandyDancer 14:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * 1. I'm not so sure that Checkuser won't tell us anything. After all, any sock can use the "spouse defense", and I've had bad experiences with people who use it.  2. I would wait until they violate WP:SOCK to continue the RFCU, or simply let the RFCU guys decide whether to accept or reject the request.  3. WP:BEANS :)  Don't assume that there's no way to distinguish between legitimate roommates. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-07 18:59Z 


 * Sorry, I don't understand 2 of those.
 * 1. Checkuser will tell us they use the same computer. They've admitted that. What can it possibly tell us otherwise?
 * 3. Not sure how you are using WP:BEANS, here. You seem to be saying that if they are actually separate people, there are ways for them to avoid harassment, but you won't say how? Is that anything like the joke about the man responding to "Do you know what time it is?" with "Yes, I do", then walking off? AnonEMouse (squeak) 19:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 1. The people behind RFCU can tell more than just whether two accounts are currently using the same IP address. Also, "two people using the same computer" is a convenient, common defense, so RFCU has a response to that.  In clear cases of WP:SOCK violation such as "voting" on the same AFD, which we're assuming this isn't, it would be meatpuppetry anyway.   3.  I'm saying that RFCU has ways to tell between legitimate roommates and people claiming to be roommates, but I don't want to say here because potential sockpuppets may be reading.  If they truly are distinct people living together, perhaps they should encourage the request to be accepted, to exonerate them, otherwise this suspicion will always be on them.  As to harassment, unfortunately, anyone can be harassed on the Internet.  If they are distinct people, it would have helped had they been open about being related.  In general, when you know that someone will suspect you of X when really it is Y, you should announce Y ahead of time (if a student has an awkward neck twitch, he should tell the teacher before the test). —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-07 19:45Z 


 * I hope you're right. CheckUser policy and Help:CheckUser merely say it lets them determine which IP address edits come from, and, frankly, I can't imagine how it could do otherwise. AnonEMouse (squeak) 19:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

MetroWiki
("Green Bus Lines")

I noted that you had fought a losing battle a few months ago to keep an article on "Green Bus Lines." I'm running a Wikia Wiki, with a transit orientation, and I feel that anything transit-related (especially if it isn't considered notable enough for Wikipedia) is fair game on MetroWiki. If you would like to put some of the material there, you're invited to do that, as well as to put any other material that might be on-topic for a transit Wiki. -- BRG 16:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-10 08:56Z 

Please
User:Moez_roy & User_talk:Moez_roy thnx. --Moez roy 04:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Are you asking me to delete your user talk page under the "Right to vanish" principle? This should only be invoked if you are leaving the project. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-09 04:56Z 


 * Look I have used my real name.--Moez roy 04:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


 * It looks like you have had run-ins with other users; generally we like to keep User talk pages around to record these conversations. However, since you have indicated your intent to leave the project, and I respect that it was an honest mistake that you created a Wikipedia user account with your real name, I have deleted your User and User talk pages.  Please note that if any trouble arises later, they can still be undeleted. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-09 05:15Z 

User:Yeahsoo
("Recreation of deleted {db-attack} material and other edits")

I flagged Kajima as yesterday and you subsequently deleted it, but it was recreated by the same user today. I've flagged it again for the same reason (and it has subsequently been deleted again before I could finish posting this). As can be seen by the user's contributions, he has an overt anti-Japanese agenda, and has been inserting links and contents to various corporate articles (Mitsubishi, Toyota, Xerox, Honda, etc) intended to disparage them.

He had previously made identical edits under the IP 207.168.191.2.

His initial edits were reverted by another administrator, User:Chris 73, who I will also contact. I then reverted the next round of edits yesterday. I plan on adding the or  template to his talk page, but in case he's in this for the long haul I wanted to be in the position of knowing that my next round of reverts have the endorsement of others, especially at admin level. Regards, --DeLarge 22:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC)



Doing something about the ridiculous date autoformatting/linking mess
Dear Quarl—you may be interested in putting your name to, or at least commenting on this new push to get the developers to create a parallel syntax that separates autoformatting and linking functions. IMV, it would go a long way towards fixing the untidy blueing of trivial chronological items, and would probably calm the nastiness between the anti- and pro-linking factions in the project. The proposal is to retain the existing function, to reduce the risk of objection from pro-linkers. We want to keep the arguments as simple as possible. Tony 00:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've added my support. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-10 08:49Z 



You nominated the page for deletion. What is your justification? Sangak 20:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I said "neutral bump from speedy", which is jargon for "I am saving this page from speedy deletion, and am not recommending delete nor keep, just asking the community for input." —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-10 20:53Z 
 * Sorry. I did not get the point. Sangak 20:55, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I will try to be more clear in the future. Thanks. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-10 20:58Z 



FastTrack Schedule
I noticed that you redirected this page to Project management software instead of deleting it. Can I ask why you did this? It seems to me that a redirect doesn't make much sense, considering the target page doesn't mention "FastTrack Schedule". Many other companies spamming Wikipedia with articles to get listed on List of project management software have had their pages deleted; some at AFD, some through prod, and many through CSD. Why redirect this one? Note: The reason I did not just delete the page myself is that I didn't not want to be partial, and preferred to have another pair of eyes look at this, though I did feel strongly that it should be deleted. -- Renesis (talk) 23:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Redirecting helps people find something related to what they were searching for if they do type in that name. It also allows the history to be seen if this later becomes notable.  In general it also helps avoid accidental recreation.  "Deletion" on Wikipedia really means "hide from non-administrators" and there's no reason to hide this article (it's not copyright infrigement, libel, etc.). —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-11 03:00Z 

Thanks
Thanks for the revert on my talk page; that was a quick one.

About the comment you left on my page earlier - I was getting overzealous with the speedy deletion tags. However, I think that today was the exception rather than the rule; there seemed to be a higher percentage of iffy articles than normal. I've gotten used to over half of the new pages being nonsense pages, as was the case recently. I need to get out of that mindset. — Brother Flounder  (aka DiegoTehMexican) 04:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Mundzir Abdul Latif
Do not merge Mooky with One Buck Short, you have yet to even state WHY they should be merged. Mooky is a popular rock singer and with release of his band's first album, he's to become more popular and famous still. Keep the article please. Citikiwi 07:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm working on a second rewrite. It should be done in a few minutes. Don't fret.--Kchase T 21:04, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-11 21:07Z 



Prods
May I ask you why you blanked my prods instead of deleting them, as they should have been? --Calton | Talk 05:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I assume you're talking about the user pages. The only difference between blanking and deleting is deleting hides old content from non-administrators.  It doesn't save any resources.  I didn't see any pressing need to delete (libel, copyvio, etc.).  —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-12 05:43Z 

Deprod of User:Thewordweavers
You deprodded Thewordweavers stating that it's an essay about Wikipedia, therefore, it's valid. In reality, it's a group presentation being hosted through Wikipedia. The students used Wikipedia just to back up a bunch of what they're saying in the presentation. I think that falls under the category of using Wikipedia as a free webhost. In addition, the page is no longer needed...their group presentation was a week ago and has already been graded. Could I ask that you reconsider? Thanks, Metros232 13:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I suppose you have some inside information. I have essays in userspace also, you won't delete them without asking me will you? :) —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-12 19:55Z 

Royalty stubs
Please let the Prodded stubs to be fully deleted. Otherwise, it is all too easy for some to dig the old content back and recreate the useless stub. ObRoy 20:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I want the history to be easy to dig up. I don't think the content is useless.  —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-12 20:19Z 
 * All useful info of those seems to be already in parent article. In fact, several of them seem to be created as "forks" of some line in parent article. Problem is not so much the scarce info itself, but the knowledge that some editors believe that anyone related to royalty needs a page here. You willing to make such easier? ObRoy 20:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It's better to leave old revisions hidden in the history unless there's a good reason to delete them. These articles you're working on are about marginally notable people and are properly written; there's no reason to make it harder to see the old revisions.  Having the redirect discourages recreation since it will point them to an article where they should add material instead, and they can find the rationale for merging the article.  —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-12 20:30Z 

Reply for my "weak neutral"
I'm using it to signify that I am on the verge of voting support or oppose. In this case, it would be the former. I'll clarify my position. :)  bibliomaniac 1  5  01:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Looks good enough, IMO, might as well let it be. BTW, i'd like to hook onto an article that I could make into an FA, but I don't know where to start or look. I was wondering if you had any ideas. Just H 19:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * No, thank you! I figured an FA would be necessary for an rfa, and at worst, it would be like sinking into a good novel. That "disccusion at" tag is cool as well. Just H 20:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * No, thank you! I figured an FA would be necessary for an rfa, and at worst, it would be like sinking into a good novel. That "disccusion at" tag is cool as well. Just H 20:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Template:discussion at
Hello Quarl. I'm intrigued by the 'discussion at' template, and I've started to use it, but shouldn't it be substed? On the view that most templates not in main space are substed. EdJohnston 06:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but I'd say it doesn't need to be substituted. WP:SUBST has specific reasons why some templates are substituted.  You are of course free to substitute when you use it; do you have a specific reason that discussion at should always be substituted? —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-15 08:00Z 

Thanks for your support with this article. If you don't mind, could I format your posting to flow with the rest of the page? I wouldn't change the text of your post, just the format slightly. Thanks again, Lutherjw 21:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

please unblock
I did not do it the network leaked, now it is fixed, the vandal removed out of the net system. Please unblock. 68.178.225.19


 * Administrators%27_noticeboard. And howdy, Quarl. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 09:09, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Hey, thanks :) —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-16 09:15Z 



Private Universities in Bangladesh
Thanks for your concern. But, instead of misleading people off to a list of schools in Bangladesh, which is only related to the subjects redirected, why don't you do it the honest way, and write on the universities yourself? These subversive techniques to keep shoddy contributions out of the editors will achieve nothing but more hassle for them. Remember, everyone works for free here, and no one deserves that extra hassle. I have tried to comply to your request and attended to 9-10 of those empty entries. But, I guess, it's time that User:NAHID, who created those entries, and you, who tried to hide them from the editors, get your hands dirty. And, oh, some of those entries do deserve a deletion (no notability and such). Thanks again. I'm sure your contributions will make WP a better and more knowledgeable place. - Aditya Kabir 15:49, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Apologies: I had to come back and write again. Sorry, that I was irritated at your suggestion. I know that you've been trying hard and working harder. But, that redirect trick was still unacceptable (you ought to know better). And, I'm sure you'll agree that overzealous creation of entries after entries on hardly-notable topics should be encouraged or protected. If these entries go deleted, that may be hard on the user, but not WP at all. Thanks. I hope your Esperanza spirit still holds. - Aditya Kabir 16:04, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Reason cited for speedy deletion of the article on Browncoats' Backup Bash was: "Unremarkable people, groups, companies and web content. An article about a real person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject."

And yet the article clearly and methodically described the circumstances in which a small group of fans managed in 24 hours to organize an unprecedented fan-run substitute convention to replace the cancelled-at-the-last-moment actual convention for which hundreds of fans had already gathered before learning of that last-minute cancellation.

I get that "speedy deletion" means deletion without discussion, but it seems odd that an unprecented event has been deemed "unremarkable" and the article said to "not assert the importance or significance" despite evidence to the contrary. So, despite the "speedy deletion", I'm respectfully asking for more of an explanation. Thanks. Theonetruebix 05:14, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:UW
Hi,

You have put yourself as interested in helping out at WikiProject on user warnings. We are now at a stage where we are creating the new templates and are wondering if you are still interested? If so please visit the overview page and choose a warning type you wish to work on. There is a base template available here, which you can copy and use to get you started. Have a look through the redirects and see what old templates are affected and incorporate them into the the new system. Anyway, any questions please don't hesitate to give me a shout. Regards Khukri ( talk  .  contribs ) 08:57, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Subst'ing
Thanks, I got the idea from someone else I saw doing the same thing. I guess I was trying to keep from scaring anyone newbies - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 21:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi, my name is Sean Wolfington and i am new to Wikipedia. When i found that i had a page on the site i added truthful facts from my bio with out the intent of creating a "vanity" article. I did add content to other people's articles that linked to a film we made and now i know that is not allowed - i am sorry. I just read the "spamming" link you added to my page and now i realize that what i did was not right.

This excerpt explains what happened to me: "Some people spam Wikipedia without meaning to. That is, they do things which Wikipedians consider to be spamming, without realizing that their actions are not in line with building an encyclopedia. A new editor who owns a business may see that there are articles about other businesses on Wikipedia, and conclude that it would be appropriate to create his own such article. A Web site operator may see many places in Wikipedia where his or her site would be relevant, and quickly add several dozen links to it."

If you can i would appreciate your advise on what to do to avoid creating problems in the future. Thanks. Sean.: —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.18.54.173 (talk • contribs)

Thank you for your response and advice. Sean.

Hello. It looks like you recently did a speedy delete on my entry for Deeko. While I certainly understand your reasoning, I'd like to offer up my rationale if I may.

So far as I can see, there are two reasons behind the deletion, and I'd like to address each individually. The first, and most obvious is a conflict of interest. I work for the site Deeko.com and as such, any traffic that might go its way via wikipedia is benefical to me personally. I do agree with the general wiki policy on the matter, but after thinking a long while about it, I decided it would be justifiable so long as I adhered to a couple of self-set rules:

1) Make sure my motivation is clear to myself: while generating traffic is all well and good, it's auxiliary as far as I could see. Deeko sort of exists as an alternative to "mainstream" game journalism, and while I won't be so naive as to prepose that it offers a "better", or even drastically different, product from IGN or Gamespot, I feel that it offers a decent contrast quite often.  As such, I felt that a site that attmepts to provide "balance", as it were, to what's already readily available fits in with Wikipedia's overall commitment to neutrality.

2) Add the article as a stub: Since I do agree with the overall conflict of interest guideline, I wanted to make sure that any article I posted served only as a jumping off point for others to build upon.

3) Create an account: Perhaps my biggest mistake here was not coming to an admin before I posted the article for guidence, but at the very least I wanted to be accountable for my post. Adding annonymously or making a phony-ish name seemed to directly conflict with rule 1 up there.  So, I figured, if anyone takes issue, I don't want there to be any question of who did what.

The second reason, and the one stated in the deletion notes, is the site's relevence. This I feel can contest with no guilt. While readership is low compared to some other listed sites, I do want to be clear that Deeko is a fully fledged game review site, and not a blog or fleeting project. It's been around since 2001, and was, at a time, a fairly widely read site. At present we have roughly 1,000-3,000 visitors a day, which I know is peanuts in internet terms, but what I think makes the case is outside recognition.

Gamerankings, if memory serves, adds you to their "bolded" list of sites once you have 300 or more reviews filed with them. Deeko has had that status for (again, if memory serves) roughly a year now and as such has been on their main page from time to time. Also, we've been lucky enough to have the opportunity to develop a rapport with a number of developers, and recently both Atlus and Bethesda have featured our reviews on their pages.

Again, I have to apologize for going into self-promotion mode, but I don't feel I can make that particular point without doing so... at least a little. At any rate, I realize we're still growing, but I feel that we've garnered enough noteriety to warrent a wiki entry.

Beyond all this, I feel I need to mention that I also added a number of links to deeko reviews to games' wiki entries. [User:Mwutz] noticed and deleted the entries and these I'm not contesting. They were meant to be something of a traffic experiment, not meant to stay up for long, and I apologize for not going through the proper channels in my haste. You have my assurance that this will not happen again.

Finally (I know this is a mouthful), I want you to know that if you still feel that the Deeko entry shouldn't exist, I will abide by your decision. I have no intention to force myself or the site I'm representing on the wiki community at large. Know however, that if you decide to keep the article deleted, it's my intention to make sure that it doesn't stay so forever. This isn't a threat of any sort, mind you, I just have faith that we'll continue to grow until there's no doubt about the validity of our inclusion. If'n we don't make the cut now, you better believe we're gonna keep working as hard as we have been to make sure we do.

Thanks so much for your time and consideration. Hope to catch you again in my non-deeko wiki-ing. Nrycar 03:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Apology
Sorry about the cross-post at Befouling. I changed the article back to a Wiktionary redirect, without noticing that you'd already filed the AfD. My fault for having too many tabs open! As I'm sure you can tell from my history on that article though, I'm definitely in support of deletion. ;) --Elonka 21:00, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * No problem, that's happened to me as well. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-19 22:01Z 



Thank you for the heads-up...
on the Project Monarch AfD. -- Antaeus Feldspar 14:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)



Note about speedy deletion, particuliary CSD G7
I was archiving Editor review, and I noticed that you had deleted Editor review/FireSpike with the reasoning "This page was mistakenly created, no one other than its original author has made substantial edits, and he or she requests its deletion or has blanked the page. (CSD G7). [created by FireSpike on, tagged by FireSpike on]" (found here)

In fact, there was a substantial history and edits made by other editors. In the future, before deleting a page, I would suggest that you look over the page history. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 02:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note, I will be more careful with CSD G7. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-21 10:21Z 

Articles for deletion/Elfriede Motzkuhn
Hi Quarl saw you working, see above Afd, was adding the articles to this one already -- Samir धर्म 10:33, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * With permission, I'll redirect the AfD's for the ones you tagged to the above -- Samir धर्म 10:39, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I didn't see that other AFD. Thanks! —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-24 10:43Z 



Articles for deletion/Necro Butcher
Aren't "nom withdrawn" and "keep" different things?  young  american (ahoy hoy) 15:29, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * See Articles for deletion/The Anatomy of the Body of God for an example. Cheers.  young  american  (ahoy hoy) 15:38, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Just so it doesn't look like I am dumping on you for one minor point of contention, I would like to express my thanks for you cleaning out a bunch of old AfDs over the past few hours.  young  american  (ahoy hoy) 15:44, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the message. I see two nuances to a "withdrawn" AFD closure: 1) early, self closure and 2) closure without prejudice, for example if the nomination was focused on the wrong argument and if another AFD were brought it should ignore this one.  In this case, 1) it was a regular after-5-days admin closure, and 2) there was consensus to keep; therefore I closed it keep with prejudice.  If people could intentionally end an AFD that is going badly "without prejudice", to give a clean slate to the next AFD, this would create a loophole.  However, that's probably not your motivation for wanting it be officially closed "withdrawn" and I'm reading too much into it :).  If you want to add the words "(nomination withdrawn)" after "keep" in the AFD closure and the oldafdfull tag on the Talk page, that's fine.  In the future you can just close it yourself when withdrawing. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-26 21:58Z 
 * The nomination was withdrawn halfway through the duration due to the fact that an editor added a little bit of context (not enough for alot of people, but enough to where I no longer felt it prudent to be the nom, as I am not an entirely rabid deletionist :) ). A couple of those keep comments were weak at best--very new users that looked at the article from the persepctive of a rasslin' fan and not as a contributor to a serious encyclopedia--and probably could have been discounted. Ih the nom hadn't been rather clearly withdrawn half-way through, it still could have ended up in the no-consensus area, but I digress.


 * As far as closing it early or adding word after yours, I would find either option to be highly inappropriate due to my contriburtions to the discussion. I was hoping another admin would come along beforehand, but alas, they did not. I was, therefore, hoping that you would reconsider your opinion (especially in light that it was not a full five day AfD).  young  american  (ahoy hoy) 23:18, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Bear in mind that I am quitting smoking, so if I seem gruff at all, I owe you two wikifavors: ie copyediting or proofing. Now off to eat carrots. :)  young  american  (ahoy hoy) 23:26, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I've changed it to "Nomination withdrawn". —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-26 23:30Z 

Erik Möller (AfD discussion)
Could I request you to explain how you came to the redirect conclusion based on the debate? Thanks. --badlydrawnjeff talk 05:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for asking. It's a case of borderline notability and there is an obvious redirect target, so I believe a redirect is a good choice.  A significant number of the participants in the debate recommended redirect, and it should also be somewhat appeasing to the deletionists (it avoids an entire article on the subject), and the inclusionists (the target article can mention the subject).  Since he may well become more notable in the future, the redirect preserves old revisions and allows the content to be brought back without admin intervention. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-27 06:30Z 
 * Yes, but where's the consensus for it? A larger significant number advocated keeping it, for example, and cited how it meets our standards. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:32, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It's a compromising solution. There wasn't consensus to keep.  In addition, many of the keep arguments were weak (putting undue weight on members of Wikimedia itself, or on a book which would receive no attention were the subject someone else), and a delete closure could have been justified.  I'm sorry, but you can't please everybody (just look at the deletionists complaining about other AFDs below this thread).  I'm not going to revert the closure at this point, but I won't be offended if you want to take it to DRV. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-27 22:55Z 
 * i'll likely be doing that, but thanks for the details, it's more than others will typically give. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:36, 28 December 2006 (UTC)



TrekBBS (AfD discussion)
I really am curious based on the discussion at Articles for deletion/TrekBBS (second nomination) how you came to the conclusion editors who argued for keeping the article showed it in any way passed WP:V WP:RS and WP:WEB? When an editor argues a site should be kept despite failing WP:WEB, that raises some red flags for me. It seems the main argument for keeping the article is that they liked the site, not that it was notable.--RWR8189 08:30, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for writing. I agree there reasons to delete the article TrekBBS and may have !voted "delete" had I participated in the debate myself.  And there were definitely some poorly justified !votes on both sides of the debate.  However, many established editors recommended keeping, despite your arguments, so I closed the debate as "no consensus".  —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-27 08:57Z 

You closed the TrekBBS as No-consensus but I am very curious as to why. WP:V requires multiple non-trivial sources reporting on the subject which this article does not have. WP:V can not be agreed to be ignored by an editor consensus so I wonder why you would close an AFD when the article violates one of the pillars of wikipedia. As an admin, looking at the article and the arguments on policies is what you should be closing afd's on...not that the editors can't agree on it. Please explain your line of thought when closing this AFD, as I really do not wish to log a complaint at this point against your adminship for failing to uphold wikipedia policies. Where are the multiple non-trivial sources reporting on the subject (the BBS itself, not the actions of one of it's members) --Brian (view my history )/( How am I doing? ) 19:36, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The existance of TrekBBS is easily verifiable, so I believe you are talking about WP:WEB, the notability guideline, not the WP:V policy. It's too late to revert the closure, but I won't be offended if you wish to have the decision reviewed by other administrators at WP:DRV.  Actually, I just saw the article Trekdom, and I believe Trekdom would be a great place to merge TrekBBS; this can be done without an AFD. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-27 22:54Z 



Merchant Cruiser (AFD discussion)
Although I'm not objecting per se to the close as mass redirection, I am curious how you reached that decision. The only editor citing merge/redirect referred to a much more limited AFD with failed implementation. You noted that "Redirect retains ability to merge if there is interest, and is relevant, and avoids recreation of separate articles"; however, there was no encyclopedic content at any of those articles, and given their nature, none is ever likely to occur, so recreation probably should be discouraged. Some of the ship names (merchant cruiser, merchant freighter, missile frigate) have a strong chance of being used in other contexts, making the redirects potentially confusing. And the target article itself, TradeWars 2002 should probably itself be merged and redirected to Trade Wars, meaning there will be a lot of double-redirect correction to deal with in the near future.

Regardless, I've already put the two categories up at CFD and the template at TFD. I'll fish through the histories to IFD all the images when I get a spare moment. I don't really care in the long term about having it all piecemeal done this way; I'd just hoped for a "cleaner" resolution, I guess. Serpent&#39;s Choice 10:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I realize the closure was not directly supported by consensus but hoped it wouldn't be contentious.  I often prefer redirecting to deleting.  It sounds like you're agreeing on the "discourage recreation" point?  Any names that have other uses should be disambiguated.  Don't worry about redirect-fixing; it's only 1 mouse click to fix them all if you have the right tool.  Thanks for finishing the related CFD/TFD/IFD work. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-27 10:25Z 


 * I do agree with the idea of "discouraging recreation". However, WP:CSD G4 allows for speedy deletion of material previously deleted via the AFD process.  It does not provide for speedy deletion of material previously suppressed via conversion to redirect, which is one reason why I, by contrast, prefer deletion to redirection when there is little chance of the deleted content being legitimately expanded in future.  Serpent&#39;s Choice 10:33, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Good point, a "delete" closure sets a stronger precedent in the legal sense. However, G4 is usually only used against uncooperatively recreated material, and such material created over a redirect can more easily be reverted back to the redirect, by any editor. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-27 10:39Z 


 * Certainly, although CSD is usually faster at dealing with tendentious editing than reversion, and avoids edit war ugliness (not, by any means, that I think that's likely here). Also, article deletion is generally (although, admittedly, not always) granted bold licesnse to delete the associated stuff like orphaned images and templates without the corresponding XFD process.  But, that's neither here nor there, and your solution, although not the one I would have made, does remedy the problem.  I'm going to finish up the IFD listing ... happy editing!  Serpent&#39;s Choice 11:17, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

re: Adminship
Deeply and honestly appreciated, but as they say over at RFA, too soon. I've only got 6 months (including a month with a staggering 1 edit) under my belt, and not quite 2k edits yet. Give me another month to put another 1k-1500 on that (I've got a lot planned for January around here!), and I think I might find myself ready to reconsider. In any case, thank you very much for the offer. Serpent&#39;s Choice 12:23, 27 December 2006 (UTC)



WP:RFA/Asterion
 

Thanks for your support on my successful Request for Adminship  (final result 78 Support /0 Oppose / 1 Neutral) I have now been entrusted with the mop, bucket and keys. I will be slowly acclimating myself to my new tools over the next months. I am humbled by your kind support and would certainly welcome any feedback on my actions. Please do not hesitate to contact me. Once again, many thanks and happy new year! All the best, Asterion talk 15:51, 27 December 2006 (UTC)



GuildCafe on deletion review
An editor has asked for a deletion review of GuildCafe. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Crossmr 18:38, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-27 22:55Z 



Articles for deletion/TNA weekly pay-per-view, weeks 1-10
When you deleted this articles, you forgot one of them (weeks 11-19). TJ Spyke 00:44, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Indeed, thank you! I have now deleted TNA weekly pay-per-view, weeks 11-20. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-28 01:15Z 

Articles for deletion/Million Voices against Corruption, President Chen Must Go
Thanks for closing the AfD above. I feel like a fool removing the tag and placing without actually closing the AfD. I even wrote out a nice deletion rationale explain that the POV concerns didn't necessitate deletion, but must have forgotten to save after previewing. It's a pitfall of having too many browser windows open. Thanks again for covering for me. Eluchil404 14:42, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * No problem, I was wondering what had happened there. Feel free to add your rationale to the closure. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-28 14:45Z 

Articles for deletion/Fitzmas (second nomination)
Re. Articles for deletion/Fitzmas (second nomination): Not that I disagree with the outcome, but... only one person even suggested redirecting to Plame affair; by what standard did you conclude that the consensus was in favor of that?

(Again, not that I disagree, but I'm a little disturbed by what seems to be an administrator inventing "consensus" from thin air.) VoiceOfReason 17:28, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for asking. Although more than 50% of the !votes were for deletion, there was a minority voice saying "keep".  On borderline notability cases like these, when there is an obvious merge target, I like to redirect in lieu of deletion, as the subject may become notable enough later and there is no need to hide the removed revisions from non-administrators.  It also helps avoid accidental recreation because redlinks are so juicy.  I also see it as somewhat a compromise to those voting keep (content could be merged) and those voting delete (no individual article).  What do you think? —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-29 01:06Z 
 * Oh, and I just realized there was a previous discussion Articles for deletion/Fitzmas which does also support the Merge/redirect conclusion. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-29 01:12Z 



Chuck E. Chaos on deletion review
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Chuck E. Chaos. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. CURSE OF FENRIC home talk usage 22:28, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-29 01:16Z 


 * Quarl, I'm sorry to bother you again over this, but I am getting nowhere with the review. I feel like I'm being ignored. I have stated that the AfD was started by a known sock (which another admin claimed was not relevant when it is as the sock has a history of attacking non American wrestling articles) and my statements regarding wanting further info on alleged failings of WP:BIO and WP:N (which I dispute upon the updates I made) are also being ignored. For the sake of the presence of the Australian independant wrestling scene on WP, this article has to be undeleted. He forms a crucial part of it's history and needs to be recorded as such - and I'll even apply WP:IAR if neccessary. If this article isn't undeleted, then the whole of the Australian indy scene is under threat. I need an admin's help here - and I'm starting with you because you were the admin who deleted it. I can't get a reply from either of the post update delete supporters as to why they believe what they believed and Amarkov is being no help at all. Sorry if this sounds terse - but I'm desperate here. CURSE OF FENRIC home talk usage 22:03, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know much about the "scene" on Wikipedia, but if he's a crucial part of history how about talking about him in the history section of the appropriate article (Professional wrestling in Australia?)? —Quarl (talk) 2007-01-01 22:32Z 
 * Quarl, I'm sorry to bother you again over this, but I am getting nowhere with the review. I feel like I'm being ignored. I have stated that the AfD was started by a known sock (which another admin claimed was not relevant when it is as the sock has a history of attacking non American wrestling articles) and my statements regarding wanting further info on alleged failings of WP:BIO and WP:N (which I dispute upon the updates I made) are also being ignored. For the sake of the presence of the Australian independant wrestling scene on WP, this article has to be undeleted. He forms a crucial part of it's history and needs to be recorded as such - and I'll even apply WP:IAR if neccessary. If this article isn't undeleted, then the whole of the Australian indy scene is under threat. I need an admin's help here - and I'm starting with you because you were the admin who deleted it. I can't get a reply from either of the post update delete supporters as to why they believe what they believed and Amarkov is being no help at all. Sorry if this sounds terse - but I'm desperate here. CURSE OF FENRIC home talk usage 22:03, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know much about the "scene" on Wikipedia, but if he's a crucial part of history how about talking about him in the history section of the appropriate article (Professional wrestling in Australia?)? —Quarl (talk) 2007-01-01 22:32Z 


 * OK, I've just done an update there (and fixed up an error while I was at it). Meanwhile the review was closed, and I had a bit of a go at the last nominator on his talk page. If worse comes to worse, I'm either going to apply WP:IAR - or I'll prod all the Australian articles because it would be clear that no one is interested in it. Which would be plainly disgusting, and frankly I don't want to do that of course. But if this precedent stands - what choice do I have? CURSE OF FENRIC home talk usage 11:52, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * If they're not notable, then I agree they should be deleted; you can either use prod or AFD. But be careful that you're not just doing it out of spite - you might be accused of disrupting Wikipedia to make a point.  As for the Chuck E Chaos wrestler, if you want we can undelete it and move it to your userspace, where you can work at your leisure on proving the notability. —Quarl (talk) 2007-01-02 12:54Z 


 * Well, the trouble is people are saying the article fails WP:BIO and WP:N and when I ask them how, and ask for specifics they go all silent. That's part of the problem. Now if you were to undelete it to my user space that would help a little, but the problem remains unresolved. On the first part, my argument is that they ARE notable. But I'm saying the same thing about the Chuck E. Chaos article, and that's been ruled non-notable. Do you see where I'm going with that? It's a serious precedent, which would actually defuse any claim to WP:POINT, because I would be following the precedent. My main concern is to not let that happen, which is why I'm battling to get this article back on WP - and hence the need for specific help. People saying "fails notability" or "fails WP:BIO" tells me nothing - especially when I am of the view that it doesn't fail either. CURSE OF FENRIC home talk usage 20:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * There are frequently disagreements (hundreds per week) about whether a certain person (or organization, or website, or ...) is notable. There'll always be a losing minority to every debate.  When relevant I usually try to make compromises by suggesting merges and redirects but it's not always possible; sometimes you just have to accept that consensus is against you and move on.  For better or worse, in the past year, AFD has moved the burden of proof of notability onto the "keep" side.  The way to prove he is notable is find newspaper articles about him. —Quarl (talk) 2007-01-03 00:33Z 


 * Quarl, the demand for newspaper articles in this day and age is not practical. The verification must be widened otherwise notable people will be missed. Getting an article into the newspaper in Australia is nigh on impossible even if it is notable in professional wrestling. I've always argued that the size of the country (population that is) should be taken into account when seeked third party sources. Australia is unique in this regard. The decision to delete in this case - by my reckoning - has been made applying American standards of notability. Every part of Australian wrestling will fail if that standard is held to - and again it harks back to WP:IAR. That's there to soften such interpretations. I can't move on. WP's mission is at stake here, and if it is to survive the Chuck E Chaos article must be restored.


 * Have you put it on my user page BTW? I'm sorry if you missed that request because it was hidden somewhat. And have you looked at my edit as per your suggestion on the Australian wrestling page? CURSE OF FENRIC home talk usage 07:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * You're right about the bias against small countries, but I'm not sure what to do about that in terms of notability requirements. Even articles on supposed princes from very small countries are deleted because there's no way to verify them.  I have undeleted your article and put it at User:Curse of Fenric/Chuck E. Chaos.  You should get consensus before putting it back in userspace (otherwise someone would just tag it for speedy deletion as a repost).  I haven't looked at your edits to the Australian wrestling page; I'm not an expert on the area so you and the other editors of that article should work on that together.  —Quarl (talk) 2007-01-03 07:59Z 

(deindent) Yes well the biggest problem is getting the people to said "fails WP:BIO" and all that other stuff to answer specifically how it failed. I have no chance of doing that if I don't know exactly where it failed things like that. Thanks for the undelete BTW. CURSE OF FENRIC home talk usage 22:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * And if you want any proof off someone attacking Australian articles - check out the contributions from User:CDlatch245. This is what I'm talking about. It's in all likelihood a sock of a known troublemaker - I've alerted the banning admin. CURSE OF FENRIC home talk usage 08:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Template:Dated prod
I noticed that you recently made some changes to this template, one of which was unbolding the proposed deletion reason. Was there a reason for this particular change? If not, would you mind changing it back? Thanks. --- RockMFR 05:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Sure thing; I've changed it back (wasn't intentional). —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-29 05:50Z 

Articles for deletion/Proof of the Pudding
Why did you delete my vote? And replace it with a note that said largely the same thing? Deizio talk 14:48, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't know how that happened; I didn't get any notification of edit conflict. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-29 14:51Z 

Thanks
Thanks for the Barnstar! It made my day. :-) Morphh (talk) 17:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the thoughts on Adminship. I did apply not too long ago but, as you mentioned, I had not participated much with doing admin tasks.  I had applied thinking I had learned enough about Wikipedia policies to be a good leader but it turned out that admins are more like janitors.  The general consensus was that I was too good of an editor and unless I really wanted to be doing tasks like AFD, Vandalism, etc. - I should withdraw my nom.  So I did, as I really didn't have much interest in those day to day tasks - I much rather be working on articles. :-)  Maybe they should have another category like "Senior editor" or something - haha.  Morphh (talk) 03:14, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

TrekBBS on deletion review
An editor has asked for a deletion review of TrekBBS. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Brian (view my history )/( How am I doing? ) 17:46, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-29 23:18Z 



Transpressionism merge problems
Hey

Noticed you were the one to merge transpressionism into Guity Novin. Someone edited that--I tried to revert but I'm not sure if I did something wrong (been only editing for a short while). Freshacconci 18:46, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Never mind--it's working now! Freshacconci 18:49, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You reverted correctly, thanks! —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-29 23:15Z 



It is ironic that a woman artist of Guity Novin caliber should be confronted by this type of Taleban attitude even outside Iran. Throughout her long struggle Guity Novin has thought more than 2000s of loyal students and these students will do their utmost to shed light on Transpressionism (as the article in Toronto's Sharvand show). Like Taleban you may succeed in deleting Transprssionism in the short-term, but every paintings of guity novin will be evidence for its power to survive and flourish.

This deletion was uncalled for. This is clearly an attempt by the proponents of Stuckism to rewrite the history of post post-modernism. Transpressionism has started in 1994 and was officially inaugurated in 1996. See the Globe and Mail (referenced in the article), Apart from that a Psychology text book and a French Poetry book, and and Art magazine (all referenced in the article) clearly mention the Transpressionism movement.

Please contact the editor of the Payvand newspaper in Vancouver, or The Sharvand in Toronto, to learn more about this artist. 24.81.86.162 19:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Please see the AFD, and start a Deletion Review if you believe it was closed incorrectly. Thanks —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-29 23:15Z 



CSD regarding Ill.Skillz Recordings
My feeling about Ill.Skillz Recordings is that the content should have been merged into Ill.Skillz rather than deleted outright. I'm not disputing the speedy, just saying that I would have liked to see a different outcome. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 02:48, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Good point, had I know about the Ill.Skillz article at the time I would have merged them. I've undeleted and redirect now.  Thanks! —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-30 03:06Z 



redirect
Hi, I was wondering if you could change the redirect for the Edward Cullen page to Edward Peter Cullen. Someone has said in the discussion that thats where Edward Cullen originally redirected to. Perhaps there could be a link to Twilight (novel) and New Moon (novel) by saying thats where the character Edward Cullen comes from (I think its called a disambig page? Or a link, or something like that) on Edward Peter Cullen 's page. I tried redirecting it myself, but it didn't seem to work. I also think that since Edward is such a main character in both books, and apparently two more to come (according to Ms. Meyer's website), I don't think it should be redirected to Twilight, but to the bishop Edward Peter Cullen's page. Disinclination 22:02, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The new redirect to Edward Peter Cullen is fine, and you did it correctly (if changes aren't showing up try purging by adding "?action=purge" to the URL). I wouldn't mind a disambig either.  Thanks. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-31 00:40Z 



WP:CANVAS
On WT:SPAM we're discussing splitting off the canvassing part to a separate guideline. I drafted a proposal here. I also noticed that you did something similar earlier, so I would like to hear your feedback on it. ~ trialsanderrors 02:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Excellent, I have voiced my support at WT:SPAM, thank you. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-31 02:28Z 



Yawn
Your nomination for good article status on the Yawn article failed. See the talk page for details. Good work thus far. Kghusker 04:42, 31 December 2006 (UTC)



I have done a bit of a re-write on the article, have taken out some of the POV linguistic problems, expanded the basics, fixed the citations & references. It's bigger than the usual stub at this point, and does include information not in the Medjugorje article. Would you reconsider your vote on the AfD page for this. SkierRMH 06:57, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the update; I've replied there. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-31 07:04Z 



Articles for deletion/Singil Station
It appears WP:LOCAL already talks about this a little. Further, Perhaps I could just propose a merge on all of them. I don't think being WP:BOLD is right since after the AFD and there was consensus to keep. If another editor did it I would be fine with that. I guess proposing merge is about all I can do now. --MECU ≈ talk 15:07, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Since you relisted the AfD for Micheal Keith Smith( Articles for deletion/Michael Keith Smith (2nd nomination)‎ ) the main voter for deletion has changed sides. There are now no votes for deletion apart from the nominator (who hasn't actually entered a reason). Can it now be closed please? JASpencer 18:38, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Closed, thanks. —Quarl (talk) 2007-01-01 00:51Z