User talk:Spartaz/Archive10

Grant access to text of article that has been deleted
Hi, an article I put up has been deleted. I would like to access the text so I can re-submit it in a form that meets Wiki content policies. The link to the deleted article is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rednano. I tried looking it up in Deletionpedia but it is not there.

Thanks. Sphsearch (talk) 02:25, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Declaration of Legitimate Alternative Account
Note that for some days I was using an alternative account while waiting on confirmation of my ability to resume the tools later so that I was not tempted into poor decisions by the sparkling bright admin buttons on my edit bar. The account can be found at and will be used occasionally to allow me to work in public areas.

Deletion review for Mark Dearey
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Mark Dearey. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. MoyrossLADY (talk) 17:02, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Final discussion for Requests for comment/Biographies of living people
Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:
 * 1) Proposal to Close This RfC
 * 2) Alternate proposal to close this RFC: we don't need a whole new layer of bureaucracy

Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip  03:29, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Deletion review for Herbert Hudson Taylor IV
Hi there, I am contacting you because I created the article on Herbert Hudson Taylor IV (aka Hudson Taylor). There was a lot of debate as to whether he had enough neutral third party sources talking about him to be “generally” notable enough to be on Wikipedia. News coverage of him as exploded in the last week following a profile done on him by the Washington Post that focused on his politics. Fox News and the Baltimore Sun are expected to cover him next week (he’s already done interviews for both). And, there are tons of news sources talking about him (including major blogs). He has also been cited in USA Today. I’ve included the links below. It’s probably best if the article on Taylor adds a line about his advocacy of gay rights. Liawilde415 (talk) 21:11, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

MAJOR NEWS SOURCES: Washington Post (print article- by Dan Steinberg) http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/17/AR2010021704715.html

Washington Post (online article-by Dan Steinberg) http://voices.washingtonpost.com/dcsportsbog/2010/02/hudson_taylor_is_a_wrestling_m.html

Outsports: http://www.outsports.com/os/index.php/component/content/article/24-people/300-wrestler-hudson-taylor-a-champion-for-gay-rights

USA Today: http://content.usatoday.com/topics/article/Places,+Geography/States,+Territories,+Provinces,+Islands/U.S.+States/West+Virginia/04Lz6gSaSUdJn/1

The Advocate: http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2010/02/22/College_Wrestler_Hudson_Taylor_Champions_Gay_Rights

MAJOR BLOGS and OTHER NEWS Towleroad: http://www.towleroad.com/2010/02/poll-shows-america-turning-corner-on-homosexuality-for-more-than-30-years-since-1978-a-majority-of-respondents-to-the-poll.html

Joe My God: http://joemygod.blogspot.com/2010/02/friendly-voices-hudson-taylor.html

Americablog: http://www.americablog.com/

AkaWilliam: http://www.akawilliam.com/sports-must-keep-gay-flame-lit/

GLB T All-Top: http://glbt.alltop.com/

Feat of Fun: http://www.feastoffun.com/

Out in America: http://features.outinamerica.com/thefeed/

After Elton: http://www.afterelton.com/blog/edkennedy/afterelton-briefs-022210

Daily Kos: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/2/23/839997/-The-Futures-So-Bright...

Life Achievement 2010: http://lifetime-achievement-2010.mattters.com/2010/02/23/day/archive

GLTNewsNow http://gltnewsnow.com/2010/02/10/centerpoint6/

Gay City USA: http://www.gaycityusa.com/

LGBT-Idea.org http://www.lgbt-idea.org/bw/cat/224/Gay_News

Daily Queer News http://dailyqueernews.com/

Queerty: http://www.queerty.com/why-gay-erotic-massage-therapists-make-business-hard-for-legit-ones-20100222/

GayLifeBlogs: http://www.gaylifeblogs.com/

Buzz Tracker: http://www.buzztracker.com/story/e3f56d34126bf50628d27ec9/gay_and_lesbian


 * Did you bother reading the notice at the top of my talk page? Please approach a current admin for help with this. Spartaz Humbug! 02:37, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Reply How do I find a current administrator? Can you please give me the name of the best admin to contact? Thank youLiawilde415 (talk) 04:27, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Spartaz Humbug! 05:54, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Hang in there buddy
Ouch. Hope your RL and WP worlds are back on an even keel soon. Earthlyreason (talk) 20:58, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Deletion review/Log/2010 February 28
Hi, Spartaz. I know that you're not in the mood for DRV and other administrative work. However, this is a courtesy notice that Articles for deletion/Simple Instant Messenger, which you closed on 2010 January 14, has been nominated for DRV again. The previous DRV was Deletion review/Log/2010 January 14 (which was closed as "No consensus to overturn the decision.") Keep your chin up through these difficult times. I hope things get better for you IRL. Cheers, Cunard (talk) 08:46, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the heads up. That really was a charmless nomination. I now know I'm making progress on the impulse control but have some way to go on the flashes of anger :-/ Spartaz Humbug! 09:47, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Article Incubator/Comparison between Roman and Han Empires
Hi Spartaz, as there's been no activity on the above page for over a month, I think we have a stable version of the article that can be moved back into article space. The desired title would be Comparative studies of the Roman and Han empires, rather than the old Comparison between Roman and Han Empires, as explained here and consensus has been reached in the linked section for such a renaming. Currently, there's a fully protected stub under the name comparison between Roman and Han Empires. The history of that article and its associated talk page is spread across at least two locations (comparison between Roman and Han Empires and Wikipedia talk:Article Incubator/Comparison between Roman and Han Empires, is there anything at Comparison between Roman and Han Empires/Draft ?), so a history merge would be needed. It looks complicated, but given the complex history surrounding the article I think both article and talk page histories should be preserved if possible. Thanks, Nev1 (talk) 18:42, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'm no longer an admin so you need to speak to someone else about this. Spartaz Humbug! 18:52, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh well, one of the reasons I didn't do it myself is I'm not an admin anymore either. Happy editing, Nev1 (talk) 01:00, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Unless I am mistaken ...
any editor is allowed to ask for an independent review of any block on any editor. I am not being disruptive nor am I out of bounds in asking for a review. --GoRight (talk) 03:12, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Um no, not everyone is allowed to insert themselves into disputesd involing othe rpeople- Abd is one for example and you have a long and less then glorious history of inserting yourself into disputes involving Abd that invariably raise the temperature and cause disruption. I'm sure that Abd would get into less trouble if editors they trust were advising them when to pull up rather then egging them on into more and more extravagant disruption. This is advice, not a warning. As you know I'm not an admin and would be recused from you and Abd anyway. Spartaz Humbug! 03:37, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "As you know I'm not an admin and would be recused from you and Abd anyway." - I found this comment odd when you made it because I was not aware of that but it kept bugging me so I looked into it today. I now, as of today, note the notice you have on the top of this page.  In digging through things to figure out what happened I just today came across  which now fills in part of the gap in my knowledge base related to . As you probably know I was not even around during that episode and while it probably means very little at this point I do appreciate that you tried to simply put a stop to an edit war on my page, and a rather lame one at that.  I did not even become aware of the episode until  whereupon I directly sought an explanation from Hipocrite here.  I didn't dig further at that time preferring to hear what H had to say.  H never replied as you can see so I never got back to digging because I figured it was all moot by that point and I had other things I wanted to attend to. Suffice it to say that I now have a better understanding of what occurred back then and the role that you played in it and why you commented as you did above.  There is no point in rehashing the past at this point so I intend to just let this lie. I do want to say that I regret that things turned out the way that they have for you personally but that seems to have been at least partially your own decision (based strictly on you notice above).  I also regret any part my absence may have played in this outcome as well.  I find the whole episode to be surreal given that we are talking about a non-binding name change proposal on a nobody's talk page.  It's just totally weird how it flared up. I hope that your RL stresses subside and that you can find your "center" again so that you feel better about whatever it is that is stressing you out.  It would not have been my desire for things to take the course that they did.  --GoRight (talk) 20:54, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The situation is much simpler then it seems at first sight. I'm sure that I am not the only (ex) admin who care(s)(d) deeply about getting their admin actions right and I'm sensitive to feedback and very reflective but this has to be judged against the noise that invariably follows actions where you have a range of competeing options of various popularity to choose from so its not always easy to recognise when you are not functioning adequately. I have been under severe pressure from RL issues since mid-January and this affects my impulse control and temper. Impulsive and/or angry decisions are a total no-no for admins but this was the state that I was in when I blocked Unitanode. My extreme reaction to the unblock helped me understand that I was not myself and I realised that I simply wasn't capable of avoiding angry impusive acts at the present time. Having the block and delete buttons on the top of my screen was dangerous so I resigned my bit. In time I know the external factors affecting me will subside and I can resume the role when I'm able to do it rationally. The ignition point may have been the lame edit war on your talk page but I would have gone bang somewhere over something and I certainly couldn't have carried on using the tools the way I was at the time I flared out. Don't worry about how or where it happened as at the time I was a ticking timebomb primed to go off over anything. I'm already feeling more under control but I think it will be some time before I'm ready to take up the bit again.  I'm not unhappy about that, I'm benefiting from the reduced stress and enjoying getting a little bit more back to mainspace editing. Spartaz Humbug! 10:47, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I commend you for being introspective enough to recognize the situation for what it was and for being willing to take pro-active steps for the benefit of all, and I am glad to hear that things seem to be moving in a positive trajectory for you. That you can maintain a positive attitude through it all is a good sign all around.  --GoRight (talk) 17:11, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the kind comment. Spartaz Humbug! 17:58, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Deletion review for MASSIVEGOOD
An editor has asked for a deletion review of MASSIVEGOOD. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. --♪Tomo65♫ 15:33, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Good work fixing the article. Spartaz Humbug! 17:55, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Allstarecho
Since Allstarecho continues to edit, could you please unprotect User talk:Allstarecho? This is also being discussed on ANI. Woogee (talk) 23:12, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I have unprotected the talk page, per your notice above and since the original protection, if I'm understanding the situation correctly, was implicitly conditioned on the user stopping to edit using the account. If I missed something, please do let me know. Thanks. Tim Song (talk) 00:06, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I can't remember why I locked it so its all good to me. Spartaz Humbug! 03:58, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you locked it because he claimed he was retired. Woogee (talk) 23:35, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

List of video game mascots
Hey. Why did you delete the List of video game mascots article? The King Gemini (talk) 00:57, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey, did you read the notice at the top of this page? Did you also look at the reason for deletion referenced in my deletion summary ?? Spartaz Humbug! 11:03, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Missed a signature
You missed a signature here. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 15:37, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks Spartaz Humbug! 16:05, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Reconsider a deletion
Judging from the notice at the top of this page I may not be helping, but I would like to ask you to reconsider your closure of Articles for deletion/Sergei Aleksandrovich Zhukov from last year. I believe that this AFD was not fully-researched and has severely-flawed arguments: Since I am an administrator I can restore the article if you agree, but I thought it was best to ask you as the admin who deleted the article via AFD if you would object to my restoring the article or should I take this to DRV? -MBK004 06:47, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * One, just because he is 50+ does not mean that he will never fly. Russian cosmonauts wait a significantly longer time to fly than American and Western European astronauts. This is primarily since the Space Shuttle can hold up to seven astronauts while the Russian Soyuz capsule can take only three at a time with a much-reduced flight-rate compared to the Shuttle. They also keep sending their cosmonauts up in lieu of newer cosmonauts, as an example of this, Alexandr Kaleri is going up again this year on his fifth flight since 1992 (selected in 1984). The US is going to fly their final astronaut from the 2004 selection group this year, Russia will start flying their 1998 and 2003 selections this year and next year (the sole 1998 selection will fly in two weeks along with a 1997 selection, and two 2003 selections will fly as the second part of Expedition 27 one year from now). Since Mr. Zhukov was selected in 2003, he should be assigned to a back-up assignment which would translate into a prime crew assignment within the year. (See List of astronauts by selection)
 * Two, it appears that no significant effort was made to find Russian references, and while the Russian space agencies are not as open with their information as NASA is, a simple google search led me to this rather detailed Russian source and when I plugged it into google translate, saw dates as of 2009 and 2010 which mentioned he had completed training and was awaiting assignment to a spaceflight.
 * Third, one of the delete arguments was that since he had not flown yet, he could not be considered a cosmonaut. That is not true, once you are selected and undergo primary training (which lasts two years) and pass the examinations you are a cosmonaut, until then you are a cosmonaut candidate. NASA operates exactly the same way, and there have been people who have retired for various reasons or died without flying who are legally astronauts and can call themselves as such.
 * The source you provided is not a RS as its not got any fact checking and relies on other publications (just like a wiki in fact) but the biography suggests that he is marginal notable - perhaps enough publications but many of them seem coproductions so its not entirely clear. Its a shame the page doesn't list their sources as that would help immensely. I deleted the article on the basis that he failed N & BIO as reliable sources were an issue and I think that may well still be the case. I wonder if anyone had looked at wikiproject Russia for help with sourcing and DGG is usually very good with academics. I'm not personally persuaded that this now meets N/BIO based on that source but I don't see the point of a DRV as, having hung out there for the last 3 years, I'm pretty confident that they will relist the AFD for further discussion of potential sourcing. I don't like replacing the consensus of a discussion with my own views unless the outcome is so obvious that the AFD can be voided as moot. I don't believe we have that yet but I would support your restoring the article and relisting it for further discussion. I would suggest you asked the wikiproject and DGG for some help first to save time in the AFD. I would do it myself, but, as you can see, I no longer have the wherewithall to do that kind of thing anymore. Spartaz Humbug! 08:00, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I figured that the source was not a RS, but before I go about relisting this, I have make a few off-wiki inquiries to see if something official which would be considered a RS can be found. -MBK004 19:29, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Brews ohare appeal
I'd like to thank you for one of the very few examples of trying to think through what has been going on in my appeal to lift Tznkai's namespace restrictions. Unfortunately. most of those assembled simply spewed their bile over losing time on the matter, and spent no time understanding what was going on.

Good job. Brews ohare (talk) 02:08, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Tag
You wanna explain your recent tag on my page. Clearly the post was neutral, limited, and non-partisan. I'll AGF though. C T J F 8 3 chat 08:15, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * How do you interpret "nonpartisan in distribution"? Hans Adler 08:18, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm just going by what the template says I suppose something like "These AfDs are annoying, please comment in support of nomination restriction" would be partisan.  C T J F 8 3  chat 08:25, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * How about only choosing people who would support your case? Otherwise, what was your thinking in only notifying 3 users who had expressed reservations about DC's AFD nominations? Spartaz Humbug! 08:38, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Look at the noms, who should I notify that supports deleting the pages? Otherwise how else would I know who I should notify.  C T J F 8 3  chat 08:40, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I responded at ANI but by choosing to notify users who you might expect to support your position you were clearly canvassing. I'm confused why you are arguing about this as the evidence is this was a poor choice rather then a deliberate act designed to skew a discussion. I would have hoped that with mature reflection, you might have recognised you made a boo-boo rather the argued the toss about it. Unless you are prepared to notify everyone who commented in all of the AFDs you mentioned, including the closing admins, you should notify no-one except the person affected by your proposal. A brief note on a wikiproject and AFD talk pages would also have been permissable but otherwise cherry picking just 3 looks really wrong. Spartaz Humbug! 08:46, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I've removed the notice from benjiboi and Bearian, and left the other 2, as they are the main 2 involved in the dispute, and I'll put a notice on WT:LGBT when it is decided that I need to start a RFC/U. I hope that you AGF more in the future, and don't template the regulars when you can just give them a friendly notice.  C T J F 8 3  chat 08:59, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * As Ash pointed out, thanks for telling me about your involvement at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Ash/analysis (2nd nomination)  C T J F 8 3  chat 09:21, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * see my response at ANI. I'm not partisan in anyway here. If I hadn't had to warn ash and benjiboi about casting unevidenced aspertions I wouldn't have had their pages on my watchlist and wouldn't have noticed the canvassing in the first place. Also, I suggest you should consider stones and glass houses yourself since you failed to mention your own potential partisanship in the original proposal. Spartaz Humbug! 09:27, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Hows that? My original proposal? Am I suppose to list every person I notify, no.  C T J F 8 3  chat 09:33, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you are wholly missing the point here. Spartaz Humbug! 09:35, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Must be, probably due to being tired, if there is more on your part, I'll respond in 8ish hours.  C T J F 8 3  chat 09:40, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No worries, I'm sure you will feel better after some sleep. Spartaz Humbug! 09:45, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Norway lobster
Hi Spartaz. I came here as a result of trying to DAB a link on Norway lobster, and notice that you protected it indefinitely; i assume the status update at the top of this page means that i can't ask you to unprotect it ~ any suggestions to whom i might turn? As a minor matter, more a curiosity to me, the page doesn't have the little gold padlock at the top; don't protected pages get that automatically? Cheers, LindsayHi 09:05, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Its probably me not using the right template. I think the indef protection was a mistake as the lame edit war ended in blocks so it wouldn't have needed locking for long. If you leave a note at WP:RFPP and a diff to this thread confirming I goofed then the next passing admin will probably unlock it for you. Sorry for the inconvience. Spartaz Humbug! 11:05, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * In fact, no probs, I requested unprotection for you. Spartaz Humbug! 11:11, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ Ged  UK  11:28, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot, Spartaz & Ged UK. Cheers, LindsayHi 11:33, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Usernames for administrator attention
Hey, just a note that I undid your removal of the backlog tag. I did the same thing a few days ago and broke the helperbot (there's a discussion at WT:UAA). Cheers! TN X Man 13:13, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Recusal
Broadly, it's to recuse anywhere where I have taken a position on the editorial content underlying a dispute or where I have any kind of relationship with one of the parties. In this case, the relevant part of my recusal policy is to recuse on all AGW disputes by reason of my edits in that area (for example:, ). I had initially thought that this dispute may not fall under the AGW umbrella, but it rapidly became apparent that it does. Steve Smith (talk) 18:00, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Canvass?
Hi. I'm interested in your opinion of this compared with this. The first was considered canvassing, but the second had the tag removed by those who were canvassed.

Isn't Ash being bullied around here, to the point of being chased away? Doesn't this constitute bullying?

As somebody who is not an experienced editor as you are, can you help me understand this? 207.237.230.164 (talk) 15:10, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, first off, I can understand why you are confused because on first sight it does look the same but the circumstances are actually very different. Canvassing is about trying to pick a band of supports to advance your position in a discussion. If a RFC is still in draft its not being discussed so its fine to ask for extra help getting the draft right. If the RFC were live and DC had asked the same editors to chime in then then DC would either get blocked or have a final warning for it. In the first case, there was a live ANI that was proposing a sanction so asking a selected group of like-minded editors to comment was clearly likely to affect the outcome and is why I called foul on it. In fairness, I really don't think the editor at ANI really intended it as canvassing but just wasn't used to raising stuff at ANI and hadn't picked up that they couldn't ask their friends to support their proposal. Spartaz Humbug! 17:47, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand but something about that doesn't sound right: an editor can prepare a tentative RFC, call in as many editors opinions as they wish, regardless of their like-mindedness, as long as the RfC isn't live? Isn't that just "pre-emptive" canvassing on a technicality?  One must assume that those same peeps will voice the same opinions when the RfC or ANI goes live. 207.237.230.164 (talk) 19:46, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No worse then the ip editor canvassing for someone to certify an RFC against Delicious Carbuncle. There has to be some way to allow users to coordinate this kind of thing and the going live is the accepted cut-off. Spartaz Humbug! 20:11, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * If you're referring to me, please note that I only asked Benjiboi because their edits were significantly mentioned in that RfC and it didn't appear that they had been notified of its existence...while the one on Ash made no mention of the editors who were asked for their opinions. If going live is the cut-off, I stand by my observation that such "pre-emptive canvassing" to parties not directly involved seems more than somewhat against the spirit of Agf and in the spirit of gaming. 207.237.230.164 (talk) 21:59, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Is Ash being bullied? I know he says he is, but he hasn't actually provided any evidence so I can't say if its true or not. The only thing I can see in the days leading up to their departure that was peremptory was my warning them to stop slagging off Delicious Carbuncle without evidence and reminding them that casting aspersions was not an acceptable form of dispute resolution. Since the arbitration committee had banned a couple of highly productive editors for it recently I can't really see that asking someone to stick to community standards of handling disputes is bullying. I would be concerned if there were evidence of on-wiki harassment and bullying but saying something isn't the same as it being true and we generally expect diffs for this kind of thing before we take it seriously.   Spartaz Humbug! 17:47, 3 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm avoiding getting into the Ash vs. Dc/Hulla/Bali issue. I have no idea exactly what happened between them and I'm not completely neutral, since Ash has always been (IMHO) a fair editor, even when we disagreed on issues; while Dc has always been hostile to me and Hulla and Bali have seemed somewhat aggressive with my edits, even when we agreed and when I was just trying to participate.   Ash was very instructive in assisting me to understand some of the "back-of-house" WikiWorkings, while these others clearly didn't want or appreciate my input, calling me names, cursing, behaving uncivilly...  But with a removed POV, I think Ash was pushed out by this select bunch of editors...but, again, I'm not getting in the middle of that.  My main focus right now is continuing to improve content, while beginning to understand the functions of the dispute resolution process.  These are good goals for a mid-novice editor, I think.207.237.230.164 (talk) 19:46, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed, this is good advice. Spartaz Humbug! 20:11, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Hope this answers your question but feel free to come back to me if you need anything clarifying. Please note I am not an admin. Spartaz Humbug! 17:47, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks again for any advice you can give in improving my WikiSkillz. I know you are not an admin but you seem well on your way!  Much appreciated.  207.237.230.164 (talk) 19:46, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You are very welcome and I have been there and done that and had the tee-shirt until I gave it back because my head wasn't right for RL reasons. Feel free to drop in if you need something explaining or need some help with something. Spartaz Humbug! 20:11, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I certainly will call on you for your opinion.  You seem like you'd be a very good Admin.  207.237.230.164 (talk) 21:59, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Delicious carbuncle
Yes, I am probably far to personally involved to take part in any such sysop actions, and it is just as well. Bearian (talk) 16:39, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * *Nods wisely* Yes that's part of the reason I gave up my bit since you can't go round waving the block button if you are not able to consider events dispassionately. Spartaz Humbug! 17:49, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

RFC/Ash
Can you please see the this RFC? It seems that one of the users certifying the basis for this dispute is a known sock puppet with several of those socks already blocked. Not sure how that affects Dc's RfC but, if I'm understanding it correctly, it certainly doesn't give it more credibility...if anything, it shows some evidence of the gaming you and I spoke of the other day.

Please advise. Thanks. 207.237.230.164 (talk) 19:56, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You may wish to take a look at User:Jack Merridew/History. NW ( Talk ) 20:07, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you. 207.237.230.164 (talk) 20:12, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, what NW said. Jack is rehabilitated these days. Spartaz Humbug! 20:47, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yup, it was my bad. 207.237.230.164 (talk) 01:50, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok, well, would you please look at this logic? I mean, seriously, where's the Agf? Is Ash supposed to defend himself against things not included in that RfC...in that RfC? It's nothing more than hostility and baiting. 207.237.230.164 (talk) 06:33, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that's not for me, I'm no longer an admin. Best thing to do is raise a discussion on the RFC talk page to guage opinion on this. Spartaz Humbug! 09:46, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. 207.237.230.164 (talk) 15:45, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

The Matadors (band)
Hello Spartaz, I noticed that you extended protection over this particular article tonight, but maintained the version that remained after the IP editor removed the referenced material that was formerly included and that they had taken out. Could you please provide us your reasoning for this? I'll put your talk page on my watch list in anticipation of your reply. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 06:44, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The Wrong Version Spartaz Humbug! 06:46, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That's quite amusing! But seriously; at the moment the current article actually contradicts itself, in that it includes "Shiraz Ibrahim" in both the current members section as well as the past members section. Perhaps this was an oversight on your part. In regard to my original question: I realize that obtaining reliable sources regarding smaller bands can often be troublesome, but surely in this context, a referenced claim is better than an unreferenced one offered up by an edit from an anonymous IP? "Verifiability" trumps "truth", you know, that sort of thing. Awaiting your reply. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 07:18, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually TWV is pretty much policy and I'm so used to locking as found that I didn't think about the vandalism. I'll fix it now. Spartaz Humbug! 07:44, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing that Spartaz, it's appreciated. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 08:04, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Protection of Self-replicating machine
You seem to have applied FULL protection to this article(!!) - the discussion on Administrators'_noticeboard was talking only about semi-protection - and I honestly don't think even that will help.

Please remove (or at least reduce to semi-) the protection for this article in order that we may continue to improve it.

Many thanks...

SteveBaker (talk) 12:49, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Whoops, that was an error, I intended a semi. I put it down a notch. thanks for letting me know. Spartaz Humbug! 13:57, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Gummiberry Juice
At 04:33, 12 April 2010 (UTC) you said: I have nominated Gummiberry Juice, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gummiberry Juice. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Spartaz Humbug! 04:33, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

At 04:35, 12 April 2010 (UTC) you said: Done Please see WP:WAX. I have restored your article as Prod is only valid if the deletion is not contested but I'm afraid that it does not meet our inclusion criteria so I have sent it for further discussion. I have deliberately not restored the image as we take copyright very seriously and the image you uploaded was not free. Spartaz Humbug! 04:35, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

The page is not there, it just redirects to the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disney%27s_Adventures_of_the_Gummi_Bears page.

Could you please clarify whether the page is being restored as per your last statement? I will try to get an image that conforms to the Copyright Guidelines while waiting for your response. Thanks! Andreba (talk) 05:01, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmmm I was as confused as you were since deletion debates usually last for 7 days but in this case the closing admin felt that there was a clear consensus. You probably want to talk to User:Jclemens about this now. Spartaz Humbug! 05:12, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

NAC
Thank you for clearing up my confusion:. I'll work to make sure my closures are more unanimous in future cases. Happy editing!  Jujutacular  T · C 17:19, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Goose House Doha.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Goose House Doha.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation.  F ASTILYsock (T ALK ) 21:25, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * How embarrassing.... but now fixed Spartaz Humbug! 02:38, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

PlaneShift
Hi, thanks for adding the old PlaneShift article to the incubator, I will dedicate time today to add all the new sources we found. On the PlaneShift forums the players started a research on notable sources and found a number. I will collect that info and add it in here. When this will be done, what's the process to have the article approved by the admins/editors? --Xyz231 (talk) 11:05, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * let me see it first and depending on progress I will either put it back in mainspace if its ready, relist it for further discussion if its borderline or be honest with you if its hopeless. Spartaz Humbug! 12:32, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I did quite a bit of work on the article adding many new sources, including gaming magazines (planeshift people provided the scans), but also other notable studies about free software and organizational model, who have been interested in the PlaneShift way of working. Let me know what you think. To tell you the truth I rarely seen an article in wikipedia for a game with so many sources, but anyway I will let you judge. Thanks --Xyz231 (talk) 13:53, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * yes I can see that you have put loads of effort into this qand it looks very impressive but I'm a little concerned that the sources cited are not secondary sources under [WP:RS]] and several of them are tangential or primary. Realistically, how many of the sources in the article count as in-depth (i.e substantially more then a mention), reliable (peer reviewed and/or fact checked) secondary (from an independent author unconnected to the subject) sources? Spartaz Humbug! 15:24, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I will say most of the following are pretty good ones
 * * http://www.jeuxlinux.fr/article-51.html
 * * http://linux.about.com/od/softgame/fr/fr_PlaneShift.htm
 * * http://assets1.csc.com/lef/downloads/1142_1.pdf
 * * Linux Format March 2005 Issue 64, Pg 13
 * * TUX December 2006 Issue 20, Pg 60
 * * http://www.planeshift.it/pix/magazines/GameStar-LinuxExtra_July_2006.jpg
 * * http://www.planeshift.it/pix/magazines/pcaction_page1.jpg (actually this is 4 full pages)
 * * http://www.planeshift.it/pix/magazines/page2_scaled.jpg
 * The others are more tangent, but considering those are studies on videogames, they add some notability. --Xyz231 (talk) 17:43, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the list. I'll study this and come back to you after I reviwed the afd. Won't be today. Spartaz Humbug! 19:22, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I haven't forgotten, will try and get to this today or tomorrow... Spartaz Humbug! 10:32, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, can you check it? I moved it to eval state. I think it's ready. Thanks. --79.30.213.62 (talk) 10:17, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * When moved it will be relisted at AfD. There has been no progress made on the page. Spigot  Who?  00:48, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that's a little unfair, the real life sources referenced in the scans from the website page are a reasonable start to establishing notability. I think this probably could do with further discussion somewhere as admins are not supposed to interspace their own opinions for community consensus. I think AFD would be better then DRV so I'd suggest that this gets moved back to mainspace and relisted for further discussion. Spartaz Humbug! 02:54, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * User:SpigotMap is the user that proposed the deletions, and he will continue to do so because he has COI with the game and a personal revenge pending. Spartaz, please move the article to the main space, from instructions it should be an admin to move it back, not a user. Thanks. --Xyz231 (talk) 10:54, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * That is an outright lie. I only supported the deletion like so many other established editors. Spigot  Who?  12:16, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Diffs
I left you a series of 4 diffs which shows 4RR last month as you requested.--Crossmr (talk) 00:48, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I've provided you the diffs you requested and I've directly asked abductive about the account issue and he refuses to answer it.--Crossmr (talk) 00:19, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I added those diffs as well as several more showing on going disregard for WP:CONSENSUS and WP:BRD there are now several people supporting a block of this individual perhaps you could come back and give this another read.--Crossmr (talk) 00:20, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

deletion review for page "CIT Program Tumor Identity Cards"
Hi,

(just to clarify, I read your http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Spartaz/Rescuing_Deleted_Content explanation page before posting this message)

I have just realized that a page I submitted in november 2009, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIT_Program_Tumor_Identity_Cards, has been deleted by you on december 17 :

"This page has been deleted. The deletion and move log for the page are provided below   for reference. 07:05, 17 December 2009 Spartaz (talk | contribs) deleted "CIT Program Tumor Identity Cards" ‎ (Speedy deleted per CSD G12, was an unambiguous copyright   infringement. using TW)"

1. I checked in vain the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_December_17 to get details about the deletion, but no mention of the page I wrote.

2. Unless I am mistaken, I believe that no warning or notification has been sent to my email address. And since it happened a while ago, I can't retrieve my page any more!

3. The page I was submitting was detailing a resource made available to the scientific community involved in cancer genomics; I am project leader for this 'CIT' effort at the Ligue Nationale Contre le Cancer (France), and my team is also responsible for the french version of this wiki page (which is currently available). I do not understand the "unambiguous copyright infringement" issue you raised but I am certainly willing to provide any information or document you might need to reconsider your decision.

Since the Ligue (a non-profit organization devoted to the fight against cancer) firmly believes that the tool and related web sites are of interest to doctors and researchers, and ultimately to cancer patients, I am going to resubmit the english version of this same page you deleted. So my only question is : What should I do to avoid a second deletion ?

Sincerely,

Fabien PETEL CIT Program, Ligue Nationale Contre le Cancer, 14 rue Corvisart, 75013 Paris, France http://cit.ligue-cancer.net/ petelf@ligue-cancer.net —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fabienpetel (talk • contribs) 09:20, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * According to the log I deleted the page for being a copyright violation as non-free text cannot be used on Wikipedia. The page I deleted appeared to have the same content as this which bears the message "© 2003-2009 Ligue nationale contre le cancer - Cartes d'Identité des Tumeurs". The text I deleted was not therefore suitable for use on wikipedia. If you are the owner of the text you need to release it on a free license before you can post the same text here and will also need to update the copyright notice on the website to reflect this. See Donating_copyrighted_materials for more on this. Spartaz Humbug! 13:28, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

DRV of International response to the 2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash
Spartaz, thanks for the notice on the DRV page. You seem to have hit the nail squarely on the head there. What should be discussed is the actual closure result of "merge", which is in complete disregard of the original consensus of "split" from the main article. Mjroots2 (talk) 18:39, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your kind comment but it seems that no-one else agrees its useful to clarify the scope of the discussion at DRV. Apparantly, I'm imposing something "top down" with the notice but its not entirely clear to me what. Jeeze. Spartaz Humbug! 14:01, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Siberian Wikipedia
Thanks for restoring Siberian Wikipedia. I dont have the time or will to attempt to source the claims in the article right now, so in the event that it is re-deleted at AfD, I've saved the text to my hard drive so I can work on it when I get more time. Do you think that Siberian language contains any information that could be useful to help save Siberian Wikipedia? I notice that Siberian language has been deleted many times, and has had some of the wildest AfD's of all, and that they don't seem to be invalidated by Altenmann's sockpuppetry.  — Soap  —  15:25, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

come on
Dude wtf only 3 count EM THREE people left comments ONE VOTE for Keep, ONE VOTE for Incubater, and ONE VOTE for deleate and if you cheaked out the TALK page for To the Sky someone put a comment about Keeping the page and i told him to put the info at the AfD page put he has not been Online. If you wouldve gone to the page b4 you deleted i was trying to add info. ALOT of info but due to some Spam link rule i couldnt add the refernces. I Made a case at the White List thing. I will recreate once i have this info STAT- Verse  05:02, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * What article/discussion are you referencing? Spartaz Humbug! 06:19, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh sorry i was referencing the To the Sky discusion.
 * There were 3 policy based deletion votes arguing that the article was insufficiency sourced for our inclusion threshold and that the album hadn't been released so the article was crystal ball gazing. The only keep voice was yours and I discounted that because you weren't arguing from a policy position and were being offensively rude. I'm not a dude and don't wtf me. Spartaz Humbug! 06:42, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Everything was sourced and wAS goin to happen so it wasent gazin on nuthin. I was not bein rude in my comment i was slightly rude in tha last comment when it was ovious tha editor left a comment w/out reading tha artitcle. STAT- Verse 06:52, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The consensus of the discussion was that it wasn't properly sourced for inclusion. Have you read the essay referenced in my edit notice and do you have any sources that count as reliable secondary sources? (Hint, blogs and interviews don't count). By the way is the ghetto talk and atrocious spelling an affectation? Spartaz Humbug! 07:14, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * There is ref's to HipHopDX.com which is currently the second biggest hip hop website. And how is an interveiw bad thats probably the best its coming straight from there mouth. And wait what did u say bout tha "ghetto talk" STAT- Verse 07:37, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * HipHopDX wasn't on the article that I deleted so what is the exact URL of the source you would like me to take into account? Regarding the ghetto speak I'm guessing that gazin nuthin bein tha ovious wouldve & discusion are either intentional errors or you need to use a spell checker on your posts. Since you started off with Dude and WTF me I assumed it was intentional. I'm the last to comment on spelling but it does make your posts harder to understand then is necessary. Spartaz Humbug! 09:17, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * HipHopDX was origionally on the article but was removed in favor of the Interveiw notes which i see as Relible seeing that it came straight outa Kevin's mouth. I was trying to add alot of info but the reference URL was Black Listed and i was working on getting it White Listed b4 you deleated it. STAT- Verse 19:20, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll læook at the history then. Spartaz Humbug! 02:40, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Okies, the reference is only a listing that an album is expected so does not come anywhere close to meeting the requirement for indepth coverage. I'm sorry but the outcome of the AFD was correct according to our policies. Spartaz Humbug! 17:10, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * fyi the page has been recreated w/ even less info STAT- Verse 21:38, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Good to see that you're back
I was away for while too. I was a little fed up with all the dysfunctional social interactions around here. I usually get sucked back when I google for something and find a wholly unsatisfying Wikipedia article on that topic. Then I check my watchlist again, and the descent towards another wikibreak slowly begins. :P Pcap ping  05:27, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

why? --80.90.85.78 (talk) 15:15, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Lancashire FA Challenge Trophy
Only just noticed you did the easy job of deleting every single seasonal page of the aforementioned cup. I guess it's left up to us minions to clean up the mess you've made with dead links littering nearly every single football club in the north west. I'm all for deletion of pages that have gone through the correct process, but to leave it at that irks just a tad. Uksam88 (talk) 18:52, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I wasn't aware that was an issue with this deletion. I'll lend a hand clearing up. Spartaz Humbug! 19:04, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 'OK, I removed the link from the two templates that was populating the article across the whole football space and this will take a couple of hours to clear from the what links to box as the servers catch up with the template deletion. I'll leave it overnight and will hopefully have time to continue tidying tomorrow. I'm away on a business trip from tomorrow to thursday but I'll try and find some time too sort this out in the next day or two. Thanks for telling me about this and for your efforts tidying up. Spartaz Humbug! 19:35, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

RetroShare page
Have you deleted my page on RetroShare ? Why ?? If I remember correctly, it justs needed a logo for the software, which I was never able to add because wikipedia would not allow me to do it.

Please, respect my work. Being a 'super user' does not allow you to make abusive use of your power right ?

Please contact me on my email: cyril.soler (at) imag.fr
 * Nope. I didn't delete it. If you look at the logs you can see that i just userfied the deleted article. It was deleted after a discussion too sdo noone has abused anythung here my friend. Spartaz Humbug! 21:10, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

RE:To the Sky
umm bc i have added more information and i believe it is long enough for an article. A it has a lot of sources which i had a really hard time getting. And i did not believe consensous was reached. STAT- Verse 23:10, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * okay instead of arguing is there anyway i can copy and paste the info in the article to my Userspace in a Draft type of mode and once i have more info you can unprotect the article i can move it there. STAT- Verse 00:59, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Its not more info you need, its more sources. You have a passing mention on a website which doesn't count because its not in-depth and an interview that doesn't count because its a primary source not secondary. By all means work on it in your user space but you need two detailed secondary sources from something that meets RS. Spartaz Humbug! 05:50, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay is there anyway i can copy and paste the info in the article to my userspace. And talk 2 you about recreating the article after I have TWO detaled sources. STAT- Verse 22:52, 30 April 2010 (UTC) What do you think of the article now. STAT- Verse 00:41, 3 May 2010 (UTC) I got Rap-Up as a s9ource and its relible. O,o STAT- Verse 01:22, 4 May 2010 (UTC) http://www.rap-up.com/2010/04/25/kevin-rudolf-reaches-to-the-sky-with-june-album-release STAT- Verse 01:32, 14 May 2010 (UTC) Okay I got another source. STAT- Verse 05:36, 14 May 2010 (UTC) http://www.prefixmag.com/reviews/kevin-rudolf/to-the-sky/39950 STAT- Verse 22:52, 14 May 2010 (UTC) I don't know if it matters but I even have the cover now. STAT- Verse 02:12, 15 May 2010 (UTC) http://www.vibe.com/posts/short-convo-kevin-rudolf --Hope thats enough STAT -Verse 16:13, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ Please read the essay referenced in my edit notice - particularly the link to our sourcing guideline. Spartaz Humbug! 06:47, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It still hasn't got detailed secondary sources. Spartaz Humbug! 02:46, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Link? Spartaz Humbug! 14:27, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * That's one. you need one more. Spartaz Humbug! 05:08, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Someone went around your protection to create . STAT- Verse 05:22, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Link? Spartaz Humbug! 07:25, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Not substantial enough to count. Is the author a staff writer or is a user submitted comment? Spartaz Humbug! 01:44, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay here is a link to a new source I have on the page.
 * Well I got the tracklist now from Tracklist. STAT -Verse 22:15, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Our ongoing George Harrison socks
I saw that you and Someguy1221 have taken care of the returning socks regarding the Sockpuppet investigations/Dmerkurev/Archive person who keeps wanting to add items on George Harrison's page. I wanted to let you know that there are a couple other anon IP's that I have tracked as being part of this. The first one Special:Contributions/128.97.12.95 only made one edit but it was to put Kadaolsa's edit back in. It geolocates to Los Angeles so it is most likely the same editor. The second is from a bit further back Special:Contributions/128.97.12.85. It made a different kind of edit so it might not be the same person but the IP also geolocates to LA. Since they are anon IP's I know that there may not be anything that you can do but I did want to make you aware of them. Thanks for you time and cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 18:36, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm wondering whether you should go to SPI and ask a checkuser to see if a rangeblock was an option. Otherwise, if this continues, we may need to look at a long term semi protection in the hope the user loses interest and goes away. Spartaz Humbug! 19:26, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the response and the suggestion. I haven't filed a CU for a few years but I am sure that I could go through the steps again should the need arise. Fortunately, "the quiet Beatle's" page has a number of eyes on it and I have been trying to make other editors aware of this situation. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 20:19, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Katie Anderson
A tag has been placed on Katie Anderson, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you.  Chzz  ►  03:32, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Why are you trying to G4 this when the outcome of the AFD was redirect? I have restored the redirect and it would have been much simpler if you had done the same. Spartaz Humbug! 03:45, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Because this way, it is more likely that someone will just 'undo' to restore the content yet again. But never mind; I'll try to look out for it again.  Chzz  ►  04:11, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Simple solution, I locked the redirect in place. That should fix any issues with this. Spartaz Humbug! 06:46, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Irving Literary Society Draft at User:Cmagha
--Cmagha (talk) 01:55, 16 May 2010 (UTC) Cmagha; thanks for the help on this and the suggestion to rework the draft on my User page. Give me a few weeks, and then could you take a look and give me some advice. I did find a reference to the society in a U.S. Government report, dated 1900, which may help with notability. Again, thanks !

--Cmagha (talk) 01:43, 17 May 2010 (UTC) Cmagha. At my User Page, we have begun to (1) cut the Irving article down to a manageable size; (2) tailor it to the Sphinx Head text which passed AfD a few years ago. The discourse on that AfD is preserved at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sphinx_Head. While we understand that the existance of other similarly situated entries is not precendence, we are looking for guides. It seems to me that "notability" was one of the lead impediments; several additional citations have been added to the cut down text on my User page. We will continue to update over the next couple of weeks. Thanks for your volunteer efforts on behalf of the WikiWorld.

Salvation, Texas
Being distracted elsewhere, I missed out on the AFD and a chance to work again on the article in the face of the new deletion efforts.

Please userfy it to me at User:MichaelQSchmidt/workspace/Salvation, Texas (film) so I might attempt addressing concerns of those at the 2nd AFD, after which I might then perhaps move it to WP:INCUBATE for further input in preparation for a possible return to mainspace. Thank you,  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 21:37, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Nevermind. I decided to write from scratch.   Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 20:22, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Courtesy note
You are receiving this note because of your participation in WT:Revision deletion, which is referred to in VPR. – xeno talk  14:16, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Deletion review/Log/2010 May 17
Sorry to contradict you, mate, but I'm positive that discussion is within DRV's purview and I'm certain the matter needs to be discussed there. An early closure is an end-run around process.— S Marshall  Talk / Cont  19:57, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I know I'm the one that brought it to DRV so aren't exactly neutral but I also seriously question your close. To quote from the DRV page "This page exists to correct closure errors in the deletion process" and by closing it early you're ignoring this.  I'd agree that DRV is not the place to take questions about the page after it has been properly userfied but the question here is whether it has been properly userfied.  By following your rationalle no one could ever question a keep or no consensus close (as the page hasn't been deleted) even in clearly incorrect cases such as 15 delete votes grounded in policy and one keep vote of I like it - not seeing that would actually ever happen but it is an extreme example of what could happen.  Additionally if any editor didn't like the fact that a page was going to be kept they could simply userify the page, close the AfD as moot and never have their action reviewed.  Both of these situation, are in my opinion, absurd but possible, if unlikely, situations that could occur if closures such as this become the norm. Dpmuk (talk) 20:53, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thirded. Please reopen this. Hobit (talk) 01:50, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Seriously? The page hasn't been deleted and DRV's scope is to review deleted material - we agreed recently that DRV would review merge closes as there was no mechanism to review them but that's it as far as process expansion goes. The article has been moved which is an editorial judgement so you can get relief at RM so there is a mechanism for review. You argue process is important and I'm applying the process around the scope of DRV. I fail to see the issue as DRV will inevitably say well its not deleted so nothing to do. If you want to argue the merits of it being moved then RM or ANI is your place (except of course that when i closed this ANI wasn't seeing the point of this either). Spartaz Humbug! 02:12, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Seriously. Are you claiming that any article that has been userfied can't be the subject of a DrV?  Given that many many articles at DrV have been userfied for one reason or another before (or sometimes during) the DrV that seems a novel argument.  In anycase, what would be the process for restoring the article to mainspace?  If it's not been deleted can I just move it back to mainspace and not fear a speedy for restoring a deleted article because it's never been deleted?  Then I guess we are back at AfD? Hobit (talk) 02:34, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * DRV doesn't have to review a userspace draft before its moved back to mainspace. DRV isn't the venue for this discussion. If the user wants to garner a consensus on whether the draft should be returned to mainspace they can raise an RM or start a discussion on the talk page but DRV has no locus unless they are arguing that the page should have been deleted. Userfy is the same as keep. Spartaz Humbug! 03:56, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with that either. It's turned the article into a redlink, which looks like a deletion to me.  But whether or not that's right, what's important is that the nominator is challenging the way an XfD was closed.  DRV is the place for that.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  05:01, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No, that's the point, if there has been no deletion then DRV is not the place to challenge it. DRV is for dealing with deleted content and this hasn't beeen deleted. There was some discussion of extending scope to include merges but there has been no agreement that process should be extended to moves. We haved requested moves for that and, if the complainant, wants to follow process correctly that is the place to request a move of the article back to mainspace. Personally, if the issue is process, I don't understand why we have to follow the wrong review process. This should go to RM and a consensus there can discuss whether the article belongs in mainspace. Spartaz Humbug! 06:48, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think we're going to agree and without wanting to be unpleasant, I'm afraid I'm going to seek consensus on whether your closure of that DRV was appropriate. It's agreed practice that there are two venues available to challenge a DRV closure: either back on DRV itself or AN/I.  Do you have a preference about which one I use?— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  06:55, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd try ANI as it will garner a wider spectrum of opinon then DRV. Spartaz Humbug! 08:29, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Slovaks in Hungary
I'm looking for feedback (good or bad) on my actions in this case. I'd appreciated your comments here. Dpmuk (talk) 15:26, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Irving Literary Society
I've read through the Closing comments, and worked up a new page for eventually republishing. Could you look at and provide some thoughts? The page is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cmagha  Thanks so much. --Cmagha (talk) 02:47, 22 May 2010 (UTC) Cmagha

Articles for deletion/Bullshido.net (4th nomination)
Hi, Spartaz. Because you participated in Deletion review/Log/2009 October 2, you may be interested in Articles for deletion/Bullshido.net (4th nomination). Cunard (talk) 21:17, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Incubation
Hi. I've been approached about moving the article Articles for deletion/PlaneShift (video game) back to mainspace. Since it was you who closed the deletion review of that article here, I think it's only polite to let you know about the incubation possibly completing. If you have any interest, and wish to comment on the state of the article, I'd be happy to hear your opinion. Anyway, take care. :) -GTBacchus(talk) 05:12, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Move war continues
Last October, you intervened in the List/Outline move war between User:Verbal and I. (You blocked me). Concerning the war, at User_talk:The_Transhumanist/Archive_24, WJBscribe stated "Should anyone who has been previous warned move such a page without clear consensus, then I think blocks should be considered as a response." Your response to his statements was "This was mentioned in my explanation in the block log but I agree 100% with everything you said."

I've refrained from renaming Lists to Outlines, except to revert Verbal's non-consensus-backed attempts to snipe the names of outlines.

Verbal is clearly engaged in a long-term effort to convert the outlines to generic lists, and I believe his actions are a clear violation of Tendentious editing. He won't listen to reason. He ignores the reasons given in reversions, he avoids discussions on the talk pages, and he returns to his tactics every few weeks. User:Quiddity is also aware of Verbal's behavior, and has tried to reason with him on his talk page as least 3 times about this.

I wish the move war to end, and I have been working on the RfC as much as my limited time these days allows. The RfC is a lot better than it was, but it still isn't ready to go live yet.

I've been reverting Verbal's moves in good faith, but this whole thing is starting to look like a long drawn out move war.

I do not wish to be blocked over this again, so I am asking you to please look into this matter.

Sincerely,

The Transhumanist 03:45, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

P.S.: I vaguely remember that an admin placed a moratorium on renaming Lists to Outlines and vice versa, but I can't find the thread. Do you happen to remember that discussion, and if so, could you point me to that thread? Thank you. TT

Requests for bureaucratship/Xeno 2
TreasuryTag has posted a follow up question to your oppose comment. I am also interested in seeing examples to support your oppose, as I believe this will be very helpful in helping me decide if I should give my opinion on that RfB. Peter 15:00, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Reflection
I'm certainly not happy about Jclemens actions and the current situation, and I understand your position at drama board... but rollback, and to a lesser degree Twinkle, are routinely removed at AN/I. I almost never see people calling editors proposing such actions lynch mobs. I had put off undoing Jclemens reverts in the hope he would get the clue and undo them himself. Someone beat him to it, but why is administrative abuse held to a different standard than "trusted editor" abuse? I don't expect a definitive answer here, but what he did wasn't okay. I'm not trying to escalate this to ArbCom, but I almost never see editors post the "calm down" sections unless it's an admin. Here's hoping the next time someone misuses rollback that isn't an administrator, you'll ask for everyone to back off and give them time. AniMate 08:48, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Ideally, I'd like to see reflection and properly nuanced understanding before any punitive action was taken against any good faith editor but I certainly wouldn't have asked for reflection if I hadn't known a different side to Jclemens that these actions were not representative of. This is really uncharacteristic and immediate tarring and feathering seems too unsophisticated an approach for my taste. Spartaz Humbug! 09:20, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Here's hoping the next time I see you on dramafest board, you'll be asking for more time before someone removes rollback. AniMate  10:20, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * ???? When have I ever been part of the tarring and feathering brigade? Spartaz Humbug! 10:47, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying your part of the tarring and feathering brigade, but it would be nice if this kind of intervention happened with users who aren't administrators. How many times do you hear terms like "tar and feathers" or "lynch mobs" when it comes to removing rollback for non-admins? Never. My experiences with Jclemens haven't been good, and that is a big part of why I'm frustrated. AniMate  13:17, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I have subscribed for years to the nostrum that you treat people the way you find them rather then by others' experiences and I have seen a lot of Jclemens around because I mostly work in deletion. I'm deletionist and he is inclusionist although we both agree that sourcing is the key to inclusion - its just we disagree as to the required degree. I bump heads with him from time to time and I know he can be a bit irascible and come across a bit strong but that's just his way and we always manage to have sensible respectful conversations. I have noticed that a couple of prominent inclusionists have been much more grumpy then usual recently and I'm convinced that its related to frustrations over the way that the tide is going with deletion discussions - expecially the way a couple of significant ARS people have been run off wiki recently. To be clear, Jclemens was wholly in the wrong and I'm acutely disappointed that they are not really demonstrating acceptance of this although they do seem to be taking the feedback on board. I still feel, based on my own experiences, that this was uncharacteristic and I was concerned that we could easily see another departure of a significant inclusionist voice and one of the most sensible ones too. This is why I asked for calm and while I'm not overjoyed that the response from Jclemens is not as positive as I would have liked I still think it was the right thing to do. And I would do the same for any user I had experience of if I felt the behaviour causing problems was uncharacteristic. Spartaz Humbug! 16:36, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

RFC discussion of User:JClemens
A request for comments has been filed concerning the conduct of. You are invited to comment on the discussion at Requests for comment/Jclemens. talk 23:56, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

File:NorwaySpiral.jpg DRV
I don't think that DRV close was made within process, and it looks like you're substituting your own judgment in that one. AFAIK, there are no free versions of this image, (I just checked again on Flickr, and there was nothing there.) and so it could be used in the 2009 Norwegian spiral anomaly article as fair use, provided a valid fair-use rationale is used per the NFCC. I urge you to reconsider your close there as a result. Regards, –MuZemike 16:45, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think this is a super vote because I actually don't personally care what happens to this image but I did feel that the keep side was mostly about a discussion might be worthwhile but many participants also accepted the image was most likely not going to pass NFCC. Given that B put forward a really strong policy based reason why this wouldn't pass NFCC I felt that was the defining comment of the discussion - bearing in mind that consensus is measured against headcount not policy. If you disagree, as I said, i don't personally care which was this goes so feel free to reclose it. Spartaz Humbug! 20:19, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Um, "consensus is measured against headcount not policy"? Tim Song (talk) 04:07, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * um, not reallyno. I meant the ither way round of course. Was tired when I wrote that. Spartaz Humbug! 04:27, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I have brought this matter to the administrators' noticeboard. It still doesn't seem right, especially when the file could be salvaged under the NFCC. I don't think I will be able to convince otherwise here. –MuZemike 07:49, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't understand why you took it to AN when I already said I wasn't bothered if you felt that you wanted to reclose this? Spartaz Humbug! 10:52, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Yulia Shisko
Mind if I create a redirect to 3+2 (band)? Tim Song (talk) 05:48, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Not at all. That's sensible. Spartaz Humbug! 05:49, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Of the 5 members in the group 3%2B2 (band) this is the only artist that was deleted and now has a redirect. So, why only deletion and redirect on 1 of 5 members?  That doesn't make that much of a sense to me.  I don't think she is any less prominent than the others, but rather the opposite as in most group images I have seen of the whole band she is placed in the centre...  The article probably needed improvement, but I think the others could too.  But I don't know Russian myself...  The Russian/Belarussian/Cyrillic alphabet as I commented on the Afd is one reason why so few pages can be found about the artist.  She doesn't seem to romanise her name the way it is/was spelled, and most pages of her seems to be in (Bela-)Russian written with Cyrillic letters.  Anyway, I see that there were no consensus, and you deleted based on who argued the best, but I have to say it looks odd when the article of 1 group member is deleted and the other 4 are not... :-/  So that said, is there any chance of maybe copying and pasting the deleted text into the 3+2 article so that article could have information about all 5 artists, and maybe make it more consistent with redirects from the individual artists? -Laniala (talk) 14:20, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Feel free to go nominate the others for deketion if you can't find detailed sources about them as individuals. Spartaz Humbug! 15:16, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

DRV close
At Deletion review/Log/2010 June 3 you closed the DRV for File:NorwaySpiral.jpg in a manner that I think is wrong. B's argument did not focus on the DRV argument. Rather it belonged in a relisted discussion. I suggest the decision be revised based on the consensus to overturn and relist. __meco (talk) 07:02, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I have already address the reasons for my close two sections up and left it to another admin what to do with the close. Spartaz Humbug! 07:08, 12 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Indeed you have. Didn't see that! __meco (talk) 07:22, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/The Irving Literary Society
While going through Category:Student debating societies, I came across the page User:Cmagha and noted that is looks like a copy of the page deleted by you at the above AfD - before I consider MfD - just wanted to give you the heads up and ask for your advice on the best way forward on it. Codf1977 (talk) 16:39, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I have speedy deleted the page as its a straight copy of the deleted text and breaches our licensing rules by not having the previous revisions but there is no actual harm in their working on a draft in their userspace. Its no index which means google can't see it. I'm most likely going to move the deleted article there to fix the attribution issues but, as long as it doesn't get moved back into mainspace until its properly sourced and not full of OR, this is allowed. Spartaz Humbug! 17:40, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * We were revising the draft on my User page; left a message with you asking for comments. Would like to get it back.  We went out to many folks asking for some ideas, and some had left comments.  Whatever you need agreement on, you have it - we were using the space as a common workshop.  --Cmagha (talk) 02:33, 15 June 2010 (UTC) Cmagha


 * Also, there were some links to sites I track relating to botany, which also have gone. I can reconstruct them, but it was about an hour or so doing it the first time.  Not related to the Irving; they were plants. --Cmagha (talk) 02:52, 15 June 2010 (UTC) Cmagha

Pages
I deleted these pages because there are no legitiment reasons for their exsistance. We have a character page with all of the specified characters information. There is no reason for separate pages filled with a fan's point of view (its bad enough the character page is vandalized 24/7). Besides that, the last time they were edited was a few months ago.ChaosMaster16 (talk) 10:29, 15 June 2010 (UTC)ChaosMaster16

Melanie Gabriel
Hi Spartaz, you tagged Melanie Gabriel with a blp prod. However, the article is from 2006, so a normal prod would have benn appropriate. Regards Hekerui (talk) 14:22, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Mario's Cafe Bar
Thanks for the references. At least one comment suggests the article was one sentence long. I'm not sure what version they are looking at, but I'm pretty confident it was longer than that. Can it be restored while it's being discussed? It's hard to answer comments without being able to see what other people are referring to. Freakshownerd (talk) 16:35, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * see my comment in the DRV - did you forget you already had a userfied version from the last time it was deleted or are you just wasting my time? Spartaz Humbug! 16:36, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed I do have a userspace version, but it doesn't include many of the cites you posted on my talk page and there may be additional content that was added to the mainspace version. I can't see it so I have no way of knowing, and I can't remember everything that was or wasn't there. Also, I believe the speedy was already overturned once, so it may be a problem on technical grounds. It seems to me that AfD would be the appropriate venue to determine whether the coverage is adequate to justify an article on this subject. The promotional claims are irrelevant since that's nothing more than an editing issue. Sorry if you feel that I'm wasting your time, but I spent some time working up the article and I'd like it to have a fair hearing in th appropriate venue. Freakshownerd (talk) 16:49, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You wrote it this morning. Is your memory really that bad? Maybe you are having more fun playing games. Just put it back up without advertising the cost of a plate of bacon and eggs and add some more detail from the articles. If you do that I can do a history deletion without it needing to sit in DRV for a week. sheesh. I'm trying to help. Spartaz Humbug! 16:53, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't write it this morning. I wrote the article several days ago. I believe I may have cut and pasted some content this morning (since I can't figure out how to move anything) and worked it up as best I could. I don't remember if that was this morning or not. There have been other intervening edits and events in my life. But it's a subject I started working on a while ago, I believe it's been speedied twice now (and overturned once), and I'm still pulling for an AfD because even though I think notability is borderline, I think it's a good addition to the encyclopedia and I'd like it to have a fair hearing at AfD rather than be speedied. It's probable that there may be additional coverage and sources and someone else may be willing to help expand the article and better establish notability if given the chance. Freakshownerd (talk) 17:00, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

The article was originally started on June 4 at Mario's Cafe. I requested it be moved on the talk page there, but never got a response. It was speedied, then moved to my userspace after the speedy was overturned. I recreated and it was speedied again. I still don't think it's a good speedy candidate because it's a record holder that has received some coverage in reliable independent sources. Whether it's enough to justify inclusion may be determined at AfD, but I don't think it's an appropriate speedy candidate because there are clear indications of notability. Freakshownerd (talk) 17:04, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * whatever. Spartaz Humbug! 17:04, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Falguni
Hi,Would you please review the article?$Max Viwe$ (talk) 08:31, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Patience. Spartaz Humbug! 09:19, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Pentagram (FYI)
I corrected the result and various {afd-merge} thingies for Promo '94 from the wrong article, Pentagram, to Pentagram (WTF). Thx—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 13:09, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Ta, I used the redirect indicated in the discussion. Spartaz Humbug! 13:55, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you, for your close of Articles for deletion/Steve Eichel, much appreciated. I worked a bit at improving the article page. ;) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 20:03, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Deletion needed
As someone who likes to see things deleted, maybe you could make this File:GreenAlvin1418.jpg disappear forever? I'm not sure on what the hold up is. Every article I create gets nominated for deletion within minutes... Freakshownerd (talk) 00:42, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 1. I don't generally work with images and 2. The file is on COMMONS so you need a commons admin to delete it. Spartaz Humbug! 03:01, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Crissy Moran (3rd nomination)
Call it what you want, but there was no "rough consensus" of those participating in the discussion to delete. Sheesh, I know its not a "vote", but it was 10-6 to keep, and that could only result in a delete in the case of female article subjects that make some editors squeamish. I have no interest in taking it to DRV, because my experience is that the article will probably pop back up (though probably in worse shape) when we aren't looking. I've seen it happen many times, see, e.g.,,. At worst, there was "no consensus" to delete this article. But if the closing admin is to be a "judge" of the correct outcome, and not a judge of whether there was consensus, then we should just say so. Cheers. (p.s., i guess we've already both touched on our views on this stuff in Deletion_review/Log/2010_June_14--Milowent (talk) 05:06, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Exactly its not a vote and so many of the keep side were asserting that their votes added little value to the discussion. The only sources adduced were primary not secondary and when the policy says notability comes from secondary sources that's what I have factor into the close. There was no consensus that the sources produced were good enough and I did due diligence myself by checking them and they seemed primary to me. There is an argument that admins shouldn't read articles or check sources themselves and just rely on reading discussions but, in a close case like this, its only fair to have all the information available before closing. Spartaz Humbug! 06:44, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * But with respects, that statement acts at complete odds with the sources offered at the AFD and included in the article itself. And further, WP:GNG has no mandate about source content just so long as the subject is addressed directly and in detail... and it was with the proffered sources... and is just that coverage, no matter what it is for, over a multi-year period from at least 2003 through 2010 that specifically meets the instructions at WP:GNG... no matter the reason for that coverage.  Again and with respects, if this decision were to go to WP:DRV you'd be hard pressed to explain how Florida Times-Union, Magazin, MAXIvip, El Argentino, Dread Central, Etcétera, Collider, The Insider, and Christianity Today are all somehow primariy sources, when they are decidely and provably secondary.   Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 09:00, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Um its primary because they are interviews not because of the nature of the source. And GNG is subordinate to N which does mention the need for secondary sources. Spartaz Humbug! 09:12, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * With respects, ONE out of NINE is not a "THEY"... so please don't let that hole you're digging get too deep. You said you used due diligence and looked at the sources and determined them to all be interviews or primary sources... but perhaps you looked at the wrong ones.  Re-read the article by Rachel Davis and Konrad Marshall of Florida Times-Union to see that it is not an interview, but rather an in-depth edited article about the subject..  The article in the Slovak Magazin is not an interview.  The article in the French MAXIvip is not an interview.  The article in Argentinian El Argentino is not an interview.  The article in the Spanish Etcetera is not an interview.  The mini-bio at The Insider is not an interview.  The article in Dread Central about her film Filth to Ashes, Flesh to Dust is not an interview.  The article in Collider about her film Exxxit: Life After Porn is not an interview.   These eight are most assuredly the secondary sources required by WP:N and the multiples required by WP:GNG.  The only one of these offered that does contain an interview segment, along with information about her film Oversold, is the one at Christianity Today.  And though guideline does allow such, that

one, out of the proffered nine, does not diminish nor magically transform the 8 that are secondary sources.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 10:45, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Michael, I'm neither blind nor stupid so bolding your comments is unnecessary. I looked at the two sources brought out in the AFD. One was an interview in the context of a film and the other was an interview in ABC. I consider them both to be primary because they are first hand accounts. See No_original_research. Published by whoever, its still a first hand account so is, by this definition, primary. I am currently at work and will happily review the links you gave but I hope you will understand that my employer has first dibs on my time right now. Spartaz Humbug! 11:07, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I un-emboldened (is that a word?). A difficulty I now see is when you write here "I looked at the two sources brought out in the AFD", when there were at least 10 sources "brought out and discussed" at the AFD... at least 8 of which were non-intervews which were never disputed... and I brought all 9 that I had offered at the AFD to you again here.  A person's notability is to be determined by the scope of coverage... and this coverage will certainly include articles about her work, past and present... and editors may certianly consider her being worthy enough of note that ABC might want to intervirew her.  Their interviewing her underscores the significance of the 8 non-interview articles.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 11:32, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Jacksonville.com - non detailed source, not very detailed and as much about the song as her.
 * Magazin.atlas.sk - Author : Cosmopolis. its not clearly peer reviewed. I don't read Czech.-, can you expand on the type of publication and degree of fact checking for this one?
 * maxivip.fr is blocked by the webfilter in Qatar so I have no comment.
 * www.elargentino.com no byline not detailed.
 * The insider.com - user submitted content, nuff said.
 * www.etcetera.com.mx author is apparently not part of the editorial staff and the link you gave is not even about Chrissy Moran
 * www.dreadcentral.com - is about the film not moran and she is barely mentioned
 * www.collider.com - ditto
 * So all in all these are not meaningful sources, they are not detailed and are too insubstantial to base a BLP on. The two best sources remain the interviews and we already discussed them. There was no consensus that the article was well sourced and the most accurate comment of the sourcing was that it was an aggregation of more trivial coverage. That's pretty accurate but when closing against policy its not a reason to keep a BLP. These are not secondary sources. Spartaz Humbug! 18:53, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Dude, this is all your opinion. Could it be any more clear that you substituted your opinion for lack of any consensus to delete.  The close is simply another species of Delete no-consensus AfDs for biographies of living persons proposal which is on the list of failed Perennial proposals.--Milowent (talk) 19:31, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) I'm not dude. 2) I only commented on those sources because I was asked to. 3) I didn't look at those sources before I closed because the two important ones from the discussion were the christianity today and abc interview ones and they were the only sources I reviewed before closing so please don't misrepresent my decision process. I don't exect you to agree with me in all things but I would ask you to assume that I have approached the decision in good faith. Spartaz Humbug! 19:40, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Everyone is a dude where I'm from :-) Anyhoo, to be clear, I don't doubt good faith here, in fact, clearly your close was intended to be in good faith because you have taken effort to explain it.--Milowent (talk) 21:34, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * A newspaper article is a secondary source. Period.  The fact that it may include an interview is called good reporting, and should make a source more reliable, not less so.  The newspaper determines the ultimate content, not the interviewee.  Again, there's no need to debate that you aren't sitting as a judge on this AfD instead of a determining whether there was consensus.--Milowent (talk) 10:53, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * My response to Michael above directly addresses your point. Spartaz Humbug! 11:07, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I see the ABC nightline segment called her "one of the hottest internet stars five years ago." The interview is interspersed with commentary about her in the segment focusing on her.  Its absurd to say it "doesn't count" towards notability, and well as an interview in a 140,000+ circulation magazine.  The fact that that interview exists counts towards notability.  Ahem.  Well, there's no need to debate and reargue what the sources are and are not, and whether they are significant coverage, etc.  We did all that in the AfD, and the consensus was certainly not to delete.--Milowent (talk) 13:54, 21 June 2010 (UTC)


 * More importantly to this duscussion, WP:NOR does not rule out the use of commentary and interviews on such shows such as ABC's Nightline. It states that "interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation", and per the instruction at WP:NOR, the Nightine source was strongly supported by multiple secondary sources.  And in no way did use of that source involve any "analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about material found in a primary source."  Further, the article was not based "entirely on [that] primary source"... as stated in earlier comments, the article was based upon multiple secondary sources.  The fact of the Nightline interview even existing came rather late into the AFD.   Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 17:55, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

inre Articles for deletion/Imortal
Yes, please send Imortal to incubation. I can work on it there with assistance from others. Thank you,  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 08:45, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Sonja Christopher
Hi. Sorry about the confusion at the afd. I missed the "not" in between the words "does" and "appear."-- Pink Bull  19:50, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No worries, I imagined it was something like that. I'll strike my comment if you want to fix the vote. It doesn't make any difference to the outcome but would be tidier. Spartaz Humbug! 19:52, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll do that. Thanks.-- Pink Bull  19:54, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

. I wrote a page entitled RICHARD H. CAMPBELL, CO-AUTHOR, THE BIBLE ON FILM: A CHECKLIST, 1897-1980. It was up one week but then you deleted it. MelanieN did a fine job reworking it. A gentleman left a comment saying why it should be saved. Right after that you deleted it. Why was it deleted? Can it be brought back in any way? Everybody at Wikipedia gave me fair treatment. They all showed consideration and were very professional. It's just that, after everyone spent time helping on it, and all the time I put into it, it's sad it was all for nothing. So I'd like to hear why. Thank you. Abbythecat.Abbythecat (talk) 22:40, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Re: Please don't edit war over shutting down that ANI report
I am not going to revert anymore. DC likes to revert-war on things like that and drill threads into the ground, beating the long-since dead horse....the reason I closed it is it was attracting too many sockpuppets of Swamilive and not really accomplishing anything. -  NeutralHomer •  Talk  • 17:29, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

June 2010
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at User talk:Delicious carbuncle, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Srobak (talk) 17:33, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Uh oh, Spartaz, you did something very very bad, huh? lol, what silliness.--Milowent (talk) 18:20, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Absolutely criminal and our brave noob rollbacked edits by Rlevse who was removing something from a banned user. Tsk tsk, thats not clever. Spartaz Humbug! 18:25, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Masonic Temple
Your closing comments for this AfD specifically say that you were not making a super vote, however methinks thou doth protest too much. Closing this AfD as delete is clearly a super vote. By my count, there were 9 Keep !votes, 3 Delete !votes, and 1 Merge !vote. Three times as many keeps than deletes. Unless those 3 delete rationales can be shown to be overwhelmingly more convincing than the 9 Keep rationales, or unless the 9 Keep rationales were not based on policy, then there is no way that you can logically read between the lines and find a consensus to delete this article. Sources were provided throughout the AfD which clearly show that Masonic Temples exist, and their architecture, interior design, symbolism, and common uses are discussed in various books and papers. As an admin you are tasked with interpreting the consensus of the contributing editors, not interjecting your own opinion. I don't imagine that my comments here will change anything, but I wanted to give you the chance to respond before I bring this to DRV. I respectfully request that you change your close to (at least) "No Consensus" and restore the article. Thanks. Snotty Wong  chatter 17:41, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you have any sources that specifically discuss the subject as an independant subject and not in the context of something else? if you do I'll undelete it on the spot but otherwise the policy based consensus is to delete and that's what I did. Spartaz Humbug! 17:44, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I provided six sources in the AfD discussion.   Snotty Wong   verbalize 17:48, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * And the sources were effectively rebutted by someone who had read them who asserted that they were not specifically about masonic temples but in other contexts. I did not see a clamour of editors falling behind your assertion of sources which was early in the discussion so there was no consensus that the sources you advanced were adequate. Spartaz Humbug! 17:53, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * So because one user (who is hellbent on deleting this article) disagrees that the sources aren't adequate, that overrides 9 keep votes? That doesn't seem right.  There was no clamouring of editors in agreement with Blueboar's analysis of the sources I found either.    Snotty Wong   squeal 17:58, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The Art and Architecture of Freemasonry
 * An encyclopaedia of freemasonry and its kindred sciences
 * Detroit's Masonic Temple
 * Masonic temples: freemasonry, ritual architecture, and masculine archetypes
 * Masonic Architecture.
 * The secret architecture of our nation's capital: the Masons and the Building of Washington D.C.
 * A New Encyclopaedia of Freemasonry, Arthur Edward Waite
 * Symbolic Masonry, H.L Haywood
 * I read three of them and the two I added to the list. Now that I can get a word in edgewise. I found the ones I read to be spot on. PeRshGo (talk) 17:55, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

SnottyWong, You are aware that it's not a vote (?) but I'm happy to review. I got called into work and have to go on really early tomorrow. It would be helpful if you could indicate the degree of discussion of masonic temples in each of those sources and I'll revisit the close again tomorrow when I get home. OK? Spartaz Humbug! 21:00, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The Art and Architecture of Freemasonry
 * Deals primarily with the architecture, and furnishings of Masonic Temples.
 * Deals primarily with internal decoration and furnishings of Lodge rooms. Yes these are found within the buildings we call Masonic Temples/Halls/Centres/etc... however the article and lists in question are all about the buildings themselves.  This would be akin to using a source on board room design in an article on "Office buildings",
 * An encyclopaedia of freemasonry and its kindred sciences
 * Has an articles on Masonic Temples
 * No, it does not. The closest it comes is a discussion on the biblical/historic King Solomon's Temple in Jerusalem.
 * Detroit's Masonic Temple
 * Deals primarily with the Detroit Masonic Temple but talks about them in general as well as the Detroit Masonic Temple's influience on future Masonic Temples.
 * Only discusses this in passing.
 * Masonic temples: freemasonry, ritual architecture, and masculine archetypes
 * Is all about Masonic Temples, though it does get a bit bogged down with conspiracy theories.
 * Again, focused on the symbology of the rooms and their decoration, not the buildings themselves.
 * Masonic Architecture.
 * No clue, I would guess a lot though given Masonic Temples make up 99% of all Masonic Architecture.
 * If you have no clue, you should not list it.
 * The secret architecture of our nation's capital: the Masons and the Building of Washington D.C.
 * Talks a little about Masonic Temples but gets REALLY bogged down with conspiracy theories.
 * A New Encyclopaedia of Freemasonry, Arthur Edward Waite
 * Has an article about Masonic Temples.
 * Symbolic Masonry, H.L Haywood
 * Talks about the symbolism behind the Masonic Temple. PeRshGo (talk) 21:34, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Again... about symbolism, not buildings. Blueboar (talk) 17:10, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Am I wrong, or have we already discussed this ad nauseum in the AfD? That is what the AfD is for.  I see no reason to start yet another discussion about the sources here, nor do I see any reason to invite Blueboar to this discussion to argue about the sources.  You're trying to turn this into "AfD part 2", and I want no part in that.  Either you stand behind your decision to close it as a delete based on the evidence uncovered in the AfD, or you don't.  I don't think this is the time to bring up new evidence and debate it.
 * Again, your job as the closing admin is to determine a rough consensus per WP:ROUGH CONSENSUS, not to insert your opinion about the sources that were uncovered. If you're confident that you have correctly assessed the consensus, then please let me know so that I can start a DRV in a timely manner.  If you're not confident, then please let me know what you're going to do about it.  A lengthy argument about the quality of the sources is not appropriate at this time or in this venue.    Snotty Wong   express 15:31, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you want me to review this close or would you rather spend your time assuming bad faith and attacking me? I'm minded to reverse the AFD but have asked Blueboar for their comments on the sourcing. Once I have that I will review. In the meantime you can do whatever you like but I would like you to ease back the aggression if you post on my talk page again. Spartaz Humbug! 15:47, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, just be aware that I don't plan on contributing to this discussion any further or "defending" the sources that I've produced. I will monitor this discussion to see if there is any movement towards action.    Snotty Wong   soliloquize 17:00, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Based on Blueboar's review of the references I would like to point out that whether we are discussing the outside, inside or symbolism of a Masonic Temple we're still talking about Masonic Temples. Let’s face it, the inside of the Masonic Temple is where the action is and as such it's going to be the focus of the reference. PeRshGo (talk) 18:01, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd also like to point out that we now have a ball park number of 50 articles about Masonic Temples on Wikipedia but no longer an explain of what one is. PeRshGo (talk) 18:13, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Of course Spartaz applied a supervote, its the same thing as User_talk:Spartaz discussed above. This also came up in Deletion_review/Log/2010_June_14, read the discussion starting with Colonel Warden's overturn vote.  In part, I noted that "If its only the 'strength of the arguments that matter,' could an article be kept if a vote is 10-1 to delete? (ETA: Spartaz are you trying to create that case? :-) )  Consensus literally means 'the judgment arrived at by most of those concerned,' and here, there was no consensus because those participating were evenly split about what the outcome should be. The Colonel isn't saying it should be overturned because 'not everyone involved agreed,' but because there was no consensus (which by definition does not mean all must agree). If only 'the strength of the arguments' matter, then the closing admin essentially becomes a judge and the numbers should be ignored. I have to imagine there are long old debates on what consensus vs. strength of arguments means somewhere in archives, maybe someone will point me to them."   No one pointed me to any such prior debates.  BTW, I happened to see the Masonic Temple AfD but did not vote because it looked overly detailed and contentious, and the !votes were pointing to a keep consensus so I felt no need to contribute.--Milowent (talk) 18:02, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * But could you respond in our secret little room here? Its not about you, it about your decision.  The supervote vs. consensus read discussion is also being touched on at User_talk:Black_Kite.  But if I did want to talk about you, or perhaps sing about you in dulcet tones, where should I go?  YouTube?--Milowent (talk) 17:08, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

(unindent) For what it's worth, I was surprised with the delete decision. In the AFD i !voted first for delete but later indicated that i was mostly opposing the inclusion of the duplicative-to-"List of Masonic Buildings" in the article. I didn't comment about the sources that were provided but thought that their presentation was convincing, and I was expecting a Keep or No consensus decision. The deletion nominator was i think the only one seeking to dismiss the sources, and his badgering throughout the AFD and related discussions entirely turned me off. Since I know the deletion nominator's repeated assertions in some of the related matters that i know about (like what is disambiguation policy) are entirely wrong and showed willful bias to ignore valid information, i disbelieve the deletion nominator's assertions about the Masonic temple sources, too. I think SnottyWong and Pershgo's arguments were generally convincing that "Masonic Temple" is a valid topic. I also probably won't comment further here. --doncram (talk) 18:06, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually no, I have absolutely no confidence in any of those sources, or the original research involved in mashing them into the topic area.
 * However given the continued assumptions of bad faith and fundamentally flawed thinking it's ceased to be worth being involved.
 * FWIW if Spartaz had made his decision the other direction I think it's highly unlikely that (s)he'd be being harrassed and accused of bad faith in this way by Blueboar.
 * The assertions above that masonic architecture relates to either temples or buildings demonstrates that someone really hasn't read the sources and is basing viability on a simplistic word count approach, along with some dubious OR.
 * ALR (talk) 18:43, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm going to relist this later today for further discussion of the sources. Spartaz Humbug! 08:20, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't bother. See below.    Snotty Wong   speak 15:22, 26 June 2010 (UTC)


 * This has now been relisted at Articles_for_deletion/Masonic_Temple_(2nd_nomination). Spartaz Humbug! 16:17, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Way to go. Congratulations.    Snotty Wong   yak 16:28, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Deletion review for Masonic Temple
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Masonic Temple. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Snotty Wong  speak 15:22, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:ANI
FYI - I have started a request on ANI that your relisted AfD be speedily closed. Snotty Wong  spout 16:48, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You really are a dog with a bone if you don't get your own way aren't you. Spartaz Humbug! 16:51, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You made the wrong call at the AfD. Don't dig yourself a deeper hole by attempting to cover it up and abusing your admin privileges.    Snotty Wong   express 16:56, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Referring to the community to discuss the sourcing on an article is an odd way of abusing my admin rights. Do me a favour and don't post on my talk page again unless you are willing to talk to me without aggression or assuming bad faith. My 9 year old handles not getting his own way better then you do. Spartaz Humbug! 17:02, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

please history restore Paper Mario DS
Spartaz, Given that it is darn likely this is going to be a notable game, I don't think deleting the history makes much sense. Could you please restore that (leaving the redirect in place)? Hobit (talk) 06:26, 27 June 2010 (UTC) Can you please restore the history of the page's talk page too? SNS (talk) 04:48, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. Spartaz Humbug! 07:59, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Hobit (talk) 19:11, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Why was RHC C TBOFAC deleted?
I wrote a page called RICHARD H. CAMPBELL, CO-AUTHOR, THE BIBLE ON FILM: A CHECKLIST, 1897-1980. It was up one week then you deleted it. I put a lot of time and effort into that. Someone put it into proper form. Some people wanted to keep it. There was a nice discussion going on and then it was deleted. I had 11 references for it (and 3 footnotes). Why was it deleted? (PS- I have logged in now, forgot to do so originally).Abbythecat.Abbythecat (talk) 08:04, 27 June 2010 (UTC) 63.3.19.2 (talk) 07:54, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * If you read the discussion there was a detailed breakdown of what was wrong with the sourcing and the clear majority of policy based arguments were to delete. The only other keep vote provided no evidence or reasons for why the book was notable. I suggest you read the essay linked in my talk page edit notice (the one with the big red border) and try and find some reliable sources. Happy to discuss further sourcing as you have it. Spartaz Humbug! 08:05, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

. OK, thank you, I respect your decision. Best. Abbythecat. Abbythecat (talk) 08:15, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Spartaz, am getting ready to move forward on Irving
We used Userfy to make substantial edits in response to the AfD. Are now ready to move back to center court. All of us are new, and therefore a little intimidated. I was thinking about moving it on to Wiki, and also posting a note on the page that asks for editor comment for new articles -- maybe that would make the conversation more pleasant. Alot of the new Wikipedians were shocked by the tone of debate last time, and we want to be more accomodating to the institutional norms. Advice? --Cmagha (talk) 13:26, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The question really is whether the sources for this article are any better then they were when it was deleted or just more of the same? Spartaz Humbug! 14:16, 27 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the second heads up; have to catch the train. Will answer at home. --Cmagha (talk) 21:09, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Irving Literary Society (Cornell University) and Articles for deletion/The Irving Literary Society
Hi

This has come up on my watch list, as the closing admin for the AfD thourght I best let you know to see if it is CSD G4

Codf1977 (talk) 16:46, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * One other point, if it does not meet CSD G4 then it will need to have the history from User:Cmagha merged in for licensing reasons. Codf1977 (talk) 17:45, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the reminder. I'm leaning towards a G4 if the details of the extra sources are not made available. Spartaz Humbug! 18:04, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Given the work that still needs to be done may I suggest that the page is re-Userfied (with the history merged) to say User:Cmagha/Irving Literary Society (Cornell University) so that Cmagha can work on the links there at his own pace ? Codf1977 (talk) 07:50, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * User:Cmagha has now copied Talk:Irving Literary Society (Cornell University) in its entirety to his talk page without any indication that the messages were actually posted somewhere else. Sigh! Also, following this, I'm finding something quite "quacky" about this. By the way, I added yet another spurious reference here. My AGF well is rapidly running dry. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 21:56, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree that something is a little "quacky" going on - I do think that something needs to be done with the history of this article and talk page - would it be worth doing that history merge and moving it off his user page to User:Cmagha/Irving Literary Society (Cornell University) so that it is a little clearer what is going on . Codf1977 (talk) 06:56, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The draft article seems more than satisfactory for mainspace. I shall be taking the matter to DRV if you continue to obstruct this good faith effort.   Note that G4 is only for unimproved articles and this article has been improved.  Colonel Warden (talk) 13:46, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Did you read the talk page for the article I deleted? I left it up for further discussion. Have you read the sources yourself to be sure they say what they are claimed to say? Do you think that at the bare minimum before restoring an article to mainspace that you might check pager histories and talk pages for relevant information before undertaking the action and maybe consult other concerned editors? Your interpretation of G4 is incorrect. The deleted article was based on the one AFDed and that was deleted over sourcing and the sourcing is still disputed. G4 most certainly applies. Spartaz Humbug! 13:50, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I read enough to satisfy myself that the article belonged back in mainspace and was working upon a DYK entry when you deleted it. This would read DYK ... that orator John Bright, President Woodrow Wilson and John F. Kennedy, Jr. were all members of The Irving at Cornell? Colonel Warden (talk) 13:54, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * So in other words you didn't check the sources despite the concerns raised over them and are not interested in doing any due diligence on account of detailed good faith concerns raised by other editors. Hmmm. Interesting. Spartaz Humbug! 14:48, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * He also pre-empted the editor who (re)created the article. What Cmagha wrote on Colonel Warden's talk page was " I have rewritten the article AfD'd last spring, and am working with the administrator to repost. Could you review and offer suggestions?" Even just out of courtesy he should have asked Cmagha before moving it to article space. Dougweller (talk) 14:54, 3 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I am one of the editors who raised significant issues with the referencing. Many of the references, do not not mention the society at all, and the creator uses WP:SYN to assert that they're talking about The Irving. The article is also highly misleading. The Irving as an independent literary society open to all undergraduates at Cornell became defunct in 1887. It was then "absorbed" into Cornell's chapter of the Phi Kappa Psi fraternity. After that point, membership (apart from honorary membership for famous people) was not only confined to members of that chapter of that fraternity, it was "automatic" for all members. Joining the The Irving in its later reincarnation is not a matter of personal interest or choice. Of the three people in the DYK hook, I'd be curious to see the referencing for that. Neither President Woodrow Wilson and John F. Kennedy, Jr. attended Cornell. The claim (unreferenced) in the JFK article is that because he allegedly belonged to the Phi Kappa Phi fraternity at Brown, he was therefore a a member of the Irving. I have no idea how Wilson allegedly became a member since the CMagha's draft got completely deleted along with his talk page. John Bright as far as I know never set foot at Cornell. His article merely claims (unreferenced) that The Irving regarded him as an exemplar. Voceditenore (talk) 15:13, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * One further relevant point on the sourcing in case anyone wanted to review this further. Cmagha asserted they used exclusively on-line sources to address the sourcing concerns raised in the AFD, yet when he finally listed the new sources (after being asked 4 times to do this) there were no links to these on-line sources. This made checking them impossible which I found concerning given that their accuracy and use had already been challenged and this si clearly counter to our policy of clearly citing and linking sources to allow proper fact checkin. If Cmagha wants this back the very first thing theys hould do is provide the direct links to this material to allow external review of their sourcing. Spartaz Humbug! 15:18, 3 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Note to Spartaz: Would it be possible to restore the old version and history of User talk:Cmagha which got deleted after the move. All past communications with him from other editors, including detailed advice from me for how to bring the article up to standard which would insure it was kept, are now gone. It also had notices about previous copyright violations, etc. What a mess. Voceditenore (talk) 15:18, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Just doing that now. Its at User:Cmagha/The Irving Literary Society (Cornell University). I'm really not sure what happened to the talk page. Spartaz Humbug! 15:22, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Colonel Warden moved Cmagha's talk page (see here) to Talk:The Irving Literary Society (Cornell University). That page was in turn deleted by yourself. I don't know what Colonel Warden was thinking...4meter4 (talk) 16:23, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The talk page was brought along with the userfied article by the move function. As the content all seemed to be about the article, this seemed fine and so I created a fresh talk page for Cmagha containing a message to him.  I'm not sure what has happened since.  Too many cooks ... Colonel Warden (talk) 17:23, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * *shakes head* Too many cooks exactly. You should have waited. The talk page didn't need to be moved with the page. Most haste less speed Colonel. I suppose I should have put the userfied article on a subpage but it was complicated by Cmagha doinga  copy paste to his user page. As already said, what a mess. Spartaz Humbug! 17:33, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, I went out and found the links to the sources, which how I was able show that they did not say what they were purported to say. This was all documented on the original talk page of the reincarnated article by Cmagha Talk:The Irving Literary Society (Cornell University). This now seems to be completely lost in the shuffle, although a copy of most of it appears here, which used to be Cmagha's normal talk page but is now at User talk:Cmagha/The Irving Literary Society (Cornell University). I feel sorry for Cmagha. It wasn't his idea to recreate it a third time, and now his talk page is nonexistant, and can only be found on a subpage. Voceditenore (talk) 17:11, 3 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Spartaz, see the connected citations in Section 5.2. I have a research back in Ithaca who can scan some of the others for me, but these should allow you to make your determination. --Cmagha (talk) 19:49, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Question about information appearing and disappearing.
I'm new to Wikipedia, only found it about 5 months ago. But I've noticed information that is here one day and gone later. Is this normal at Wikipedia? For example, if I send someone an e-mail that tells him to look at something at Wikipedia, and he e-mails me back saying it's not there, it's really embarrassing. Also, if I'm doing a paper on a subject, and I get a fact from Wikipedia, the teacher looks it up and, presto, it isn't there anymore, and I get called a liar. And get an F. Why does this seem to happen so often? Can't information be "cemented" and not changed? Who alters it anyway? And why? This is really irritating. It also makes Wikipedia appear to be untrustworthy. Also, if someone adds information, what does he then have to do, check every single day to make sure someone hasn't deleted it? I've just tonight restored info that had been on here since I first found Wikipedia. Why after so many months was it deleted? Now that I've restored it, will it stay? Do I have to keep checking it every day? I'm rather afraid to "cite" Wikipedia in any papers or to anyone as the data changes so often. This doesn't seem right. Abbythecat.Abbythecat (talk) 01:51, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

PS - to illustrate what I mean, the edit I made last night (restoring information to the KOLCHAK: THE NIGHT STALKER page) has already vanished. What is the proper procedure? Should I restore it again? If I do, will it be deleted again? Who is the joker deleting this? Some official at Wikipedia, or some clown who thinks this is funny? Any advice? Abbythecat. Abbythecat (talk) 23:46, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * . IMDB is not a reliable source so your addition was reverted. I'm really not sure where to begin in terms of explaining how a wiki works so I'm going to drop a bunch of links on your talk page that you should first read. When you have done that please feel free to drop back here if there are still questions you want answered. Spartaz Humbug! 06:58, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the information. A few things still puzzle me, if I may vent. IMDB.COM is NOT a "reliable source"? Wow. Why? I have got all my movie/TV data from them since 2001. I've never noticed a single error there. Not reliable? We'll agree to disagree, I guess. I still don't understand -- or should I say agree, perhaps -- that data can be changed by anybody at any time. For instance, if I look up THE WOLF MAN now, and it says it was released in 1941, that's true. However, if somebody changes it to 1942, and I look it up after the change, then the new year is true. Then someone changes it to 1943, then that's true ... you get the idea. I think some data should be listed in a way that it can't be changed. Again, we'll agree to disagree. I've also noticed the links you sent me to say "be bold". Yet any time I'm bold, the data is rejected. As of now, I'm 0-6 -- five pages rejected, 1 edit rejected. At least my record is still perfect! One last thing, why do I get messages that have nothing to do with me? I'll get a "warning" to stop making edits about "snow blowing" or the "cleveland indians" or whatever. I never made these edits. Sometimes I get messages for "hotcat" -- who? That's not me. I'm listed as having made 50 edits (!). I've only ever made 1, and it was rejected. Why am I getting the blame for someone elses work? Is this normal? Thanks again. At 0-6, I better quit while I'm behind! Abbythecat. Abbythecat (talk) 23:44, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * IMDB isn't acceptable because the data is user submitted and there isn't sufficient verification and peer review of the information. See WP:RS for more information on that. Basically, you can use published books, academic papers, broadsheets, scientific journals and suchlike as sources but not blogs, tabloids, your own memory or random websites. As far as the extra edits, that's probably because you are not using your own account to edit but just doing it logged out. Your uip address is probably shared so you are getting messages intended for other users. If you log in each time you won't face this problem. As far as contributing goes, you just need to persevere, wikipedia is complicated but worth it once you get the hang of it. Spartaz Humbug! 03:16, 3 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I only tried 1 edit and logged in to do that. I have never tried an edit without logging in. I didn't even know you could do that. So any other edits that I'm getting the blame or credit for aren't mine, sorry. As for trying again, as Elton John sang in ROCKET MAN, "I think its gonna be a long, long time". Thanks again for your time. Abbythecat. Abbythecat (talk) 03:58, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

DELREV: The back of lanes hand
Before you send a copy by email, you might want to read my talk page messages from the author and the deleted content. It was a joke article that I seriously doubt is going to be used in a real film (see the last paragraph). -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 07:39, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up. I won't waste my time then. Spartaz Humbug! 03:17, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

RfA vote/block
Thank you for blocking for that outrageous racism. There was nothing remotely humourous about it; I'm very pleased that this was not tolerated. Thank you for preserving the good name of the vast majority of Englishmen, for whom such comments are anathema.  Chzz  ► 08:58, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I'm astonished that anyone would want to support his actions. Spartaz Humbug! 03:18, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It's reminded me of an idea I had, a while ago.
 * There is a quite successful campaign you might know of, Let's Kick Racism Out Of Football, and it strikes me something Wikipedia could possibly adapt, in some fashion; to raise the profile of the issue a bit; perhaps provide some clear, anonymous method for reporting incidents and emphasize zero-tolerance. Homophobia and religious intolerance too.
 * It's just an embryonic thought, really; I've mentioned it to a couple of people. Do you think it's worth considering - village pump or something?  Chzz  ► 14:11, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I personally don't feel that homophobia or racism are significant issues on wikipedia. Discriminatory and racist comments are invariably followed by stiff blocks. I think the current arrangements - reporting misbehaviour at ANI - works fine. Spartaz Humbug! 05:09, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

User:X-romix
Could you revdel this fairly nasty personal attack/outing/general rubbish while you're indeffing him? Thanks.  N419 BH  04:05, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ Spartaz Humbug! 04:12, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Israel blockade list
Your closing comment was spot on. Cptnono (talk) 05:03, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Compliments are rare round here. I also left Kaasalan a warning about their behaviour. Spartaz Humbug! 05:06, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * My pleasure. You guys get no love. I recall you getting hell from another editor about Jay Jennings (turned out alright). As much as I think it should be deleted it really could be a list so why not try it out.Cptnono (talk) 08:39, 5 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I am me, not them or anyone else, do not belong any group. Why as an admin do you try to refer me as plural. After TWOFR's notice I already decided I won't add comments next time. However you are wrong I didn't canvas at all.


 * First of all I have no friend or supporters or fans in wikipedia. So I have no vote power or canvas potential in the first place. "likely discouraged non-aligned editors from involving themselves in the discussion" is a failed argument. Articles for deletion/List of Jewish pacifists, peace activists and supporters is another AFD case I am not notified as recent page contributor 1 month ago.


 * Second I put exact same notice in every related channel including opposing ones where vast number of opposing users exist. Noticeboard for Palestine-related topics along with Noticeboard for Israel-related topics and Middle Eastern military history task force or Gaza flotilla raid. Because I seek a wider debate with Palestinian, Israeli and non-Palestinian/Israeli users like me have a debate. [anyone can clearly understand that part] You can clearly see delete voters come from related portals after my notification. [which is the natural way AFD process should shape having various related users]


 * The article satisfies the basic need/demand of such a list in Gaza flotilla raid, 2007–present blockade of the Gaza Strip and many others which are WP:TOOLONG so a proper WP:FORK. I didn't create article myself but it was a needed FORK since there was such a demand.


 * It might be harder to understand for non-related/non-expert users who does not know about the Israel-Palestine conflict much. Yet the list is crucial:
 * Since what is banned or not banned is highly critical it raises issues of collective punishment, economic warfare and other humanitarian crisis issues by UN and many other Human Rights organisations, therefore the case is covered by multiple RS internationally. [Not only BBC dozens of mainstream media]
 * The case is highly critical that Israeli HR Organisation Gisha took the case to the Israeli courts. Therefore it is even NOTABLE by that event. [the court case was about revealing what specific items are banned/prohibited]
 * Because there was such a broad ban on items [even chocolate] organisations like Free Gaza Movement started a Gaza flotilla raid. The banned items are also related to Gaza War, Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel etc.


 * I stated the AFD is unnecessary based on failed arguments like WP:INDISCRIMINATE. The list is not WP:INDISCRIMINATE, it is a highly specific list about which nutrition/agriculture/housing items etc. are banned in the blockade. Since it is important in many MAIN articles. I expressed my frustation simply because:
 * I am not obliged to show courtesy to the people who wastes actual contributors time/efforts in wikipedia, trying to get articles/information deleted without even showing any effort in CONSENSUS/DEBATE. The actual courtesy is respecting others edits. By the way stating they have an unnecessary AFD with failed arguments is not hostile or biased.
 * AFDs has a limited time period 7-14 days. Nominator first PROD a necessary article then after I removed his PROD and improved article, started a rushed/blazingly fast AFD with 3-5 random/non-random people while not showing any effort in taking necessary pre-AFD steps or notifying related MAIN?FORK page contributors/portals. I was away so I haven't got notified until 5-6th day of the AFD, like the rest of the page contributors, which is not NPOV/courteous/NPOV at all.


 * So WP:AFD nominator started PROD then AFD process:
 * Without Contributing to the page/improving it
 * Without Discussing with FORK/MAIN article users seeking any CONSENSUS/DEBATE
 * Without Making any research
 * Without Notifying any WP:FORK/WP:MAIN article/RELATED WP:PORTAL users/contributors about the WP:PROD or WP:AFD
 * Isn't a bit wrong to have an AFD discussion without page contributors/expert users/contributors on the area or is it just me who thinks that way


 * You should actually warn AFD nominators who fails to comply the necessary pre-WP:AFD processes, who even does not bother asking why the article is created [It was upon a need in MAIN ARTICLES]. The rushed AFD without related users was not healthy or NPOV or courtesous at all. Wasting other editors serious efforts with AFDs they don't even notified is a serious lack of understanding the colloboration spirit of wikipedia.


 * The main body of text is added by delete voter Markowitz and I did not delete it.
 * I have proven many other similar item based lists are available in wikipedia.

So basically your comments/arguments on the case is not true. You should review the case more through. Kasaalan (talk) 10:26, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Batman 3 AfD
See User_talk:NativeForeigner. I incubated until a time in which more sources available, because of substantial changes by moreno oso I undid my close, but then... the talk page discussion... NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 05:39, 5 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The page is still live at Batman film (2012). NativeForeigner moving it and incubating it during an AfD was not exactly helpful. Fences  &amp;  Windows  13:13, 5 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I was mistaken in my chain of events. NativeForeigner closed it to move to the incubator, then moved it back out and re-opened the AfD, but the article was at a different title and so another AfD was opened! I have moved the article back to the incubator and move protected it: Article Incubator/Batman film (2012). I've also closed the redundant AfD. Fences  &amp;  Windows  13:27, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I deserve a trout... NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 17:23, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I-DEAS deletion
I had cleaned up the I-DEAS article & after my cleanup, there were no comments made in the AfD. Since AfD is not a vote, I thought that I'd check that you had actually (i) seen that I went to efforts to clean the article up and (ii) that these efforts were somehow insufficient to rescue the article. Prior to these edits, I had no experience with the page, so I don't know if I might have missed anything that wasn't in the deletion discussion. Thanks. --Karnesky (talk) 13:00, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delay in responding. I'm afraid that what appears to be a brief discussion in a lecture does not multiple independent detailed sources make so the consensus that this did not meet our inclusion standard was valid. Spartaz Humbug! 14:36, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your response. As noted in the discussion, there are multiple sources that can be cited.  After my comment regarding these sources, Pxtreme75 (who called for deletion) agreed that I-DEAS is notable & said the article just sounded spammy and needed a "fresh start" (presumably from those sources).  Rather than start from scratch, I see no reason not to keep the non-spammy parts of the article.  I included multiple sources (not just the lecture notes) in my cleanup, but you are correct that more sources should be added to the article.  I believe that the multiple books on this topic show that WP:V can be met easily.  So, my impression is that either:
 * You think that nobody would agree with me (contrary to my reading of the deletion discussion) that there are sufficient sources that could be added to this article. Please let me know if this is the case and why.
 * You think that it is debatable whether there are enough sources that can be added. If this is the case, can you relist the debate?
 * You think that there are enough sources that can be added, but that the article did not contain them. If this is the case, can you please restore the article & we can add the needed cleanup tags?
 * --Karnesky (talk) 17:57, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Premature Deletion Syndrome
Please see my request for undeletion here. You seem to have deleted without fully reading the discussion. A number of questions were not addressed, a number of issues were not resolved, a number of arguments for retention left unaddressed. Could you please read through the page carefully and confirm that the page was deleted prematurely. Thanks. - PtAuAg (talk) 14:03, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't be so patronising. Just because you don't like the outcome doesn't mean that I didn't read the discussion. AFDs run for 7 days. They are not infinitely extended for the benefit of one keep voter arguing over minutiae. Notability is demonstrated by providing multiple independent reliable sources that discuss the subject in detail. Wriggling and arguing about obscure metrics is simply a distraction to avoid addressing the elephant in the room - that no-one else thinks this bloke is important enough to write about. Since wikipedia isn't here to contain original writing that is not recorded elsewhere this person does not qualify for an entry and that was the consensus of the discussion. I'm presuming that you read the essay linked in my edit notice (the one surrounded by the large red box)? That contains everything you need to understand about inclusion thresholds and sourcing. Spartaz Humbug! 14:21, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Action_Bullet
Thanks! If it was a hoax they'll have to do a better hoax and if it was real they'll have to do a better real article ... I must say I'm strongly inclined towards "hoax" but either way, I'm glad it's gone. Cheers DBaK (talk) 07:38, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Black Swan Story
Hi Spartaz, thanks for closing the deletion debate for Black Swan Story and deleting Black swan story. Just in case you hadn't spotted it, I thought I'd better mention that Black Swan Story still remains. This is a result of another user changing the article name after I'd opened the deletion discussion. Sorry for the bother, Ranger Steve (talk) 10:21, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up. This is now toast. Spartaz Humbug! 14:36, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Nice one, cheers. Ranger Steve (talk) 10:48, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Request user-space copy of Ralph Kauzlarich
As I said on the AFD, this guy has already had a whole book written about his military service. I'd like to keep a copy of the article around in case any new sources come to light. Thanks in advance. -- Kendrick7talk 10:07, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Its at User:Kendrick7/Ralph Kauzlarich. Spartaz Humbug! 10:23, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Danka! -- Kendrick7talk
 * Det var sa lidt. Spartaz Humbug! 11:10, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I had to google that one. Very few Danes in my homeland (q.v.), but a big one in my latest home of online poker! -- Kendrick7talk 12:10, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * :-) Spartaz Humbug! 13:13, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry
Spartaz, I'd like to apologise for the way I reacted at the edit war noticeboard. I do think you made the wrong call, but it was a bit confusing. There was no need for me to suggest you were incompetent or corrupt, I don't think that's the case. I should have explained more calmly. Anyway, hope there's no hard feelings. mikemikev (talk) 10:19, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * While I accept your apology I'm sure you will understand that your behaviour did not leave me with a happy feeling, even now after you said sorry. Spartaz Humbug! 10:24, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Irving Literary Society
The Irving article has been noticed on the WikiProject New York page; some helpful comments sent back. Did not receive notice on your G4 decision; we will be asking to move the article back to mainspace shortly. Thanks for the aid. --Cmagha (talk) 02:51, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No. Unless you have addressed the significant issues concerning allegations of misrepresenting sources and the contention that all of the sources are tangential or trivial then this isn't going back into mainspace. Spartaz Humbug! 04:30, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Concerning aggressive opposition
There's an editor who I believe has gone too far in his efforts to oppose the outline project.

He's placed a very odd notice on Portal:Contents, and he has placed "disputed" tags directly into Wikipedia's navigation menus at template:Contents pages (header bar) and template:Contents pages (footer box).

These pages are at the very top of Wikipedia's navigation hierarchy, and they receive a lot of traffic.

I'm pretty sure the notice and tags are inappropriate, but I can't stop him. The notice instructs readers not to create new outline articles.

Initially, he removed the links to the Outline of Knowledge altogether, and when addressed on the talk page, he changed his tactics.

Please take a look to see whether or not admin intervention is needed, and please instruct me on how to handle this type of thing better in the future.

Thank you,

The Transhumanist 21:48, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * *Sigh* and I see you revert warring with him over it as well. This private war between you two is becoming very tiring. Spartaz Humbug! 19:16, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm attempting to compromise, but as TT has become a WP:SPA it is quite hard. Quiddty, Karnacs and I are actually working on the RfC and fixing a lot of the problems TT has caused. This is a "war" between TT and the community. Spartaz, I apologise if you feel dragged into this - please feel free to remove this comment. Please note I attempted to address each of TTs concerns when he raised them (although he didn't raise them with me or at the RfC workpage). Verbal chat  20:08, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Dodge Armoured Car
Interesting choice. Methinks you be getting a bit too quick for your own self. :) -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:39, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed! Don't you love scripts and cut and paste. In the old days it would take 10 minutes to physically close an AFD but now its only seconds.... Ironic the level of deletion debates are decreasing. Spartaz Humbug! 09:37, 12 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Your close of this matter seems improper. Please reconsider. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:39, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Why does it seem improper? What exactly would you like me to reconsider it too? IIRC the single source you cited was considered tangential. Is there more information to consider or are you simply relying on your own conception of notability rather then the one more widely accepted. Spartaz Humbug! 11:48, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The close was defective in at least two respects:
 * There was no consensus for the hybrid result which you seem to have created yourself
 * You stated that the keep arguments were not based upon policy. There did not seem to be any significant difference in this respect between the keep and other arguments made which were all concerned with the facts of the matter.  The close seemed to go out of its way to gratuitously delete the article when this action was redundant.  This action seems contrary to policies such as WP:PRESERVE.  (Also please note again that notability is still not a policy).  Colonel Warden (talk) 11:56, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * N is a strong guideline and widely accepted as the inclusion standard around here. I know you don't agree with it but that's the standard I close to and the standard the DRV upholds. So, do you have anything that meets N here? Your appreciation of how we assess consensus here appears to be playing up. If we look at the votes in detail we have:


 * Nomination - not the best but uses the a good policy based argument - no sources and looked
 * Withdrawn delete vote
 * Assertion of 2 sources. 1 of these was examined and challenged and found too insubstantial and the other was asked for further details and there was no reply. So this didn't add up to multiple detailed sources
 * Your keep vote recycling the source that had already been challenged as being insubstantial
 * 2 keep votes from the same user based on non-policy grounded reasons of its important and this is a forgotten area (i.e. no sources and leaning towards deletion)
 * 1 Delete vote based on a thorough search - including offline - that raised no sources.
 * 1 support for a central artice on the subject of Irish armoured vehicles
 * The withdrawn delete voter supporting this.
 * 1 vote to redirect.
 * So there was a clear consensus here that this didn't justify a standalone and the policy based votes were for deletion. Like it or not, that's the inclusions standard round here. Spartaz Humbug! 13:03, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Keaton in limbo
You've deleted Harry Keaton, but what about Louise Keaton who was also nominated in the Afd? Clarityfiend (talk) 00:25, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up. I got to that. Spartaz Humbug! 19:05, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

saul farber article
I recently noticed that my article on saul farber, the republican candidate for 2010 in ny's 26th senate district, was deleted. i am new to wikipedia but i am pretty sure that he meets the basic notability requirements. in your page "rescuing deleted articles" you say an article should have at least 2 nontrivial citations by reliable sources. saul farber has 3. (1): http://www.nysun.com/opinion/new-yorks-rising-sarah-palin/86036/ (2):http://www.gothamgazette.com/article/albany/20081101/204/2730 (3):http://www.observer.com/lydiadepillis/344/swimming-against-tides-young-republican-challenges-gottfried. all sources are reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. saul farber is the main focus of all three sources, and he is included as more than a trivial mention in several other articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmiller558 (talk • contribs) 03:28, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Let me think about this. Cudos for the sources but, for some reason, we treat candidates slightly different and I need to research this a little. I'll come back to you on that. Spartaz Humbug! 19:04, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * hey spartaz, I know, or at least im pretty sure your not getting paid to edit for this website, but i'm wondering when i can expect a decision on the article. In my opinion, political candidates should be accorded greater leniency regarding the notability requirements on wikipedia, due to the importance of the electoral process and public desire to learn about candidates. I understand why obscure third party candidates might be prevented from having a wikipedia page, but candidates nominated by either of the two major political parties have, in my opinion, been accorded a certain degree of legitimacy that should qualify them for a wikipedia page. I apologize if this isn't the place to post this kind of argument, thanks  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.193.146.42 (talk) 15:56, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If anything, we are harder on politicians then normal people because there are WP:BLP1E issues. To be honest I simply don't have time to consider this, I'm packing for a 6 week holiday after a horrendously busy week at work. I think the best thing to do is raise a DRV and ask the editors there for their opinion on the sources/close. Spartaz Humbug! 16:05, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Natalie Dylan AfD
Hi there, Spartaz. I saw you closed the AfD for Natalie Dylan as merge to Moonlite BunnyRanch, but it seems to me the arguments for merge drill down to the comment by Whpq. Even though some others agreed with that premise, I think the comments by Milowent and me went into a bit more depth on identifying the best target for this article. Specifically, since the extent of the article's topic and relevancy covers several other similar cases, I believe it makes sense to keep it separated from that single Moonlite BunnyRanch publicity stunt, perhaps merging into Virginity instead, or moving the article into a title that covers this kind of event generically. What do you think? --Waldir talk 07:14, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The merge target is really a matter for editorial discretion as it doesn't require admin tools to do. I went with what was suggested but you have my blessing if you can think of a more appropriate article to merge this to. Spartaz Humbug! 07:50, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Deletion review for Rachael Faye Hill
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Rachael Faye Hill. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.

Michael Bletsas
Hi — can you explain your deletion rationale "Since sources have not been provided the delete arguments have not been refuted" in Articles for deletion/Michael Bletsas? Since the time of the nomination, 11 footnotes were added to the article, including many that cover him nontrivially and are reliably published, so I don't understand what you mean when you say that sources have not been provided. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:08, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The arguments in the afd were that the sources were by him not about him. Has that changed? Because I didn't see that position effectively challenged in the debate. Spartaz Humbug! 20:10, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Not to mention that the close says nothing about whether there was a consensus to delete (see above discussions where this has come up before). However, I'm getting a noticing that Spartaz may be out until 27 Aug and thus may not respond.--Milowent (talk) 20:13, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Or they may :-)--Milowent (talk) 20:13, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * In fairness to David; I missed a comment about the sourcing so there was refutation of the argument. I'm going to reclose as no-consensus. Spartaz Humbug! 20:14, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Deletion review for UEFA Euro 2020
An editor has asked for a deletion review of UEFA Euro 2020. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Avala (talk) 20:25, 15 July 2010 (UTC)