User talk:Spartaz/Archive12

Articles for deletion/Forstal (disambiguation)
We closed this AfD at the same time. I relisted as there was little involvement, though an interesting question had been raised. There is one article with the title Forstal and there has been an indication there may be others. It seemed appropriate to leave the discussion open until the matter had been resolved. However, like you, I also considered deletion, but as not all the other discussions on similar DABS had been closed as delete, I thought another seven days wouldn't hurt. What do you think?  SilkTork  *YES! 10:23, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Think there is no quorum in AFD and well argued deletion grounds under policy had been put forward that no-one seemed interested in countering. I can't see what difference a relist would make but frankly don't feel strongly either way. Feel free to do what you think appropriate with my blessing. Spartaz Humbug! 10:26, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll leave things as they stand - I just looked and the ordering of the close was that your delete fell just after my relist so there is a logic to it, and there should be no confusion - if it had been the other way round I would have undone my relist.  SilkTork  *YES! 12:23, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Humanity (journal)
Hi, I'm a bit surprised by the close of this AfD, given that there were 2 delete !votes (counting my nom), one implicit keep (Spannungsfeld), and one neutral. To close this as "no consensus", it would seem that you have given at leat some weight to the keep arguments. I'm curious to see which ones, as I don't see any valid ones that don't fly into the face of WP:NOTCRYSTAL. Thanks! --Crusio (talk) 10:37, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * There was a relist and then no further comment so it seemed to me that a consensus had not emerged. Without the relist I probably would have deleted it but once a colleague had determined that further discussion was required and no further discussion ensued then I would have opened myself up to criticism had I deleted the page. Spartaz Humbug! 05:44, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That does make sense. Darn inconvenient because now we'll have to go through an AfD later again. Too bad nobody commented during the relist. Thanks for explaining! --Crusio (talk) 07:06, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Anorthosis Famagusta FC
Hi, don't think you meant to delete this did you? I'm going to restore it, please let me know if there is a valid reason for deletion. Camw (talk) 11:24, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that was a "user" malfunction when I was batch deleting with a script. Thanks for catching that and my apologies for the trouble. Spartaz Humbug! 17:41, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Your rational is troublesome
You deleted Green Restaurant despite there ample news coverage found of the phenomenon, among other coverage as well.


 * The result was delete. copyvios are bad and if the article is irredemably bad then deleting and starting again is a well established process. So delete this but specifically encourge the creation of a properly sourced article at this location Spartaz Humbug! 10:20, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

If you thought anything was a copyright violation, why not just delete that section of it? Since when do you delete an article simply because its poorly written? Also, you misspelled irredeemably and encourage.  D r e a m Focus  15:05, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

We delete articles based on copyvios all the time and there are precedents for deleting crap and replacing with a proper article. Feel free to write that article. Spartaz Humbug! 17:43, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd offered to stub it out during the AfD but wanted to avoid an "aircraft design" drama of people getting upset at article improvements. Maybe after the holiday i'll create a basic stub with honest sources, unless you beat me to it Dream.--Milowent • talkblp-r  18:45, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * How exactly can you fix something that was destroyed? You didn't fit it, nor give a chance to fix it, you just destroyed it.  Milowent, can you request it be usefied to your user page, if you want to work on it?  Its far easier to work with something, anything, than start from scratch.   D r e a m Focus  23:01, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem with using a tainted version as a basis for the new article is that the copyvio then persists in the version that is recreated. That is why wem routinely delete copyvios and start fresh. Spartaz Humbug! 05:41, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Boyko, Viktor Sergeyevich
I greet you Spartaz! First of all I would like to thank you for the attention you have paid to the article about the subject. Could I ask you to help me to understand my mistakes that have taken place in that article? If we take a look to the talk we could see that a pair of the article's sections was removed. IMO credible independent reviews and interviews are a worthy part of article. Comment this situation please. Best Regards, Doctor Zevago (talk) 00:54, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, Spartaz. Thank you for your answer. It is very pithy.Doctor Zevago (talk) 23:17, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Lutheran Medical Center
No infobox, pictures, coordinates or anything else salvageable? If not I will start fresh. Ng.j (talk) 18:09, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I would have said if there was. Spartaz Humbug! 18:33, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks for your help, it is appreciated. Ng.j (talk) 18:54, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you!
Thank you for your support at my RfA last week. I'll do everything I can to live up to your expectations and the trust you have shown in me. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 13:01, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Articles_for_deletion/UEFA_Euro_2020
Hi, you said you'll be "happy to userfy". Has it been userfied? If not, I don't mind hosting it :) Thanks! LeviShel (talk) 09:25, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Spartaz Humbug! 10:32, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Your rational is troublesome
I had to restate what the person above said because you did the same thing for Jesse Stay. I had stated firm, secondary source-backed arguments that he was noteworthy to be included. No one proved me otherwise. In fact, others were stating the fact that his involvement in LDS Cinema was interesting. (I met someone today who told me he was one of *the most important men in LDS media to date* - not my words) I suggest you let the conversation continue rather than delete it without any chance to state other words. I'm disappointed this was deleted so abruptly without any chance to finish the discussion. Jesse Stay (talk) 00:52, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm perfectly willing to call out Spartaz when I disagree with a decision of his to delete, but this isn't one. Firstly, it wasn't deleted "abruptly"; the discussion was open the full 7 days.  It didn't garner a single !vote to keep.  Its generally a very bad idea to create and/or defend articles about relatives because its impossible to be unbiased.  See, e.g., Articles for deletion/Tom Krieglstein (the brother of the subject created the article, he later thanked me for helping him see the reality), Articles for deletion/Howard Press (3rd nomination) (the son of the subject created it, and it backfired when his dad's enemies took it over with shoddy sources).  I am a strong inclusionist, but looking at the deleted article, I have to say that folks like this often get deleted.  If an unbiased editor is able and interested in creating an article in the future, and has the sourcing to make it stick, that's much more likely to succeed.  I hope you continue to contribute to wikipedia where you don't get compromised by inevitable conflicts.--Milowent • talkblp-r  03:27, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you actually have any detailed independent third party references that meet the standards laid out in WP:RS? That is our inclusion threshold and all you have to do to reverse the close is to provide the references. Spartaz Humbug! 16:07, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Re:Casting Aspersions
I apologize for the confusion, and have made an explanation and minor redaction on the discussion page. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 07:08, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you but you then made it worse by accusing specific editors of harassment and bullying. You need really decent evidence if you are going to make that charge. Spartaz Humbug! 07:23, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I was merely restating the examination of the situation that I'd made a few days ago, also on that page. I have provided further explanation, with diffs of my comment, on the discussion page. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 07:37, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Anushka Wirasinha unfair deletion
This author's page was deleted due to unfair practices. The initial electronic mail to OTRS was purely malice with no facts to back it up or prove anything stated in it. Her page was deleted not because it didn't meet notability criteria as it clearly did but because of her association with Colombo International School and those who want to create trouble. All the admins are from UK and there was no clear consensus at all other than the biased view of a select group of admins from UK who targeted this subject unfairly and some have conflict of interest. If you go back to the initial delete you can see that editors have said there are facts to back up the information. The admins didn't allow the article a fair chance for editing or feedback from outside nonbias editors or admins. Instead a specific group of UK admins dominated the discussion and deliberately created an unfair environment to maliciously delete a notable author. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.129.235.21 (talk) 02:49, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I am extremely unimpressed with your behaviour. Go away. Spartaz Humbug! 04:29, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Exodwarf planet
The user who created the now deleted exodwarf planet article seems to have copied most (all?) of the content in what was exodwarf planet and now put it in Extrasolar Dwarf Planet. This does not quite seem in line with the consensus reached in the deletion discussion, though there was some support for moving. I am not sure what the proper course of action is, so I thought I would let you know. James McBride (talk) 09:51, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I can tell you what the correct course of action is: tag it as a G4 speedy. I have now done this. The user in question is using Wikipedia to promote his own blog and his own made up word. What he's done is invented a new word on his blog, gone around to a bunch of astronomy-related websites and promoted his neologism in the user comments, then started a Wikipedia article using his blog and user comments as sources. I don't think that kind of behaviour should be encouraged. Reyk  YO!  22:55, 5 December 2010 (UTC)


 * You listen here! I have made articles about extrasolar dwarf planets on Wikipedia and I have not cared about the name. I had been told that there is a problem with Exodwarf Planet as a name so fine Extrasolar Dwarf Planet is the same idea. Frankly while Exodwarf is not a real word. Exodwarf planet is! I was told that Extrasolar Dwarf Planet is acceptable and peer reviewed, a real word. You have expanded Wikipedia rules beyond what they are here. You are hereby challenged. Yisraelasper (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:03, 6 December 2010 (UTC).
 * Challenged? To what? Handbags at dawn? There was a clear consensus at the discussion that the subject wasn't notable enough to be included. Please stop spamming your pet name. Spartaz Humbug! 05:11, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Challenged by bringing it up for review. It is clear from your language that you have no interest in being objective. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yisraelasper (talk • contribs) 05:33, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * GO ahead. Spartaz Humbug! 06:01, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of Celebrity Jeopardy!
Hi. I'm trying to understand your close of Articles for deletion/Celebrity Jeopardy! (2nd nomination), which was made without comment. How could the result have been arrived at when there was no consensus for the close? When the "keep" remarks amply showed how the nomination rationale did not apply? When the "merge" votes were made without explanation or remarks, and how when the "keep" remarks were never countered? Robert K S (talk) 04:11, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Its hasn't been deleted its been merged. That is a perfectly acceptable outcome and no sourced material need be done if the merge is handled properly. There was a clear majority for a merge and the keep votes on the basis of notability didn't overcome arguments about overkill and the need for independant references. Spartaz Humbug! 05:15, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

FOOD IS YUMMMMMY!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.239.60.169 (talk) 04:10, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Quackity quack
Should we just do an SPI filing on Mr. FredoMurphy now, or would you rather wait to see if he responds to your query? Tarc (talk) 17:15, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Waiting for the moment. The behavioural evidence is quite compelling to tell the truth. Spartaz Humbug! 18:42, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hatya: The Murder
Inre your close, might you please consider setting it up as a redirect to Akshay Kumar? Thank you.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 00:26, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirects are matters for editorial judgement and I just went with what the discussion said. I suggest you start a discussion on where it should be. Spartaz Humbug! 06:05, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Request reconsideration of deletion of Criticism of Twelver Shi'ism
Greetings, I have indeed read your essay on deletion, and would still like to ask that you reconsider the deletion of the article Criticism of Twelver Shi'ism. Here are a few basics of my stance, and I'd be happy to elaborate on them as needed.
 * More than half of the page of criticism occurred prior to my coming in and making sweeping changes to the article. The article as it stood at deletion bears maybe 20% correspondence with the originally AfD'ed version.  I removed extensive amounts of material that had been legitimately objected to, including cites to websites, books which were not accessible online, and some tone issues.  I submit the last version had good sourcing, no major tone issues, and no CV issues.
 * I submit that the subject is an extremely notable one. The article helps to explain, not justify, Sunni animosity towards and sectarian violence against Shia Muslims.  I had, prior to reading up on the subject a year ago, wondered what possible argument Sunni extremists in Pakistan made for constantly whaling on the Shia minority.  I now better understand their claims of justification, though I don't consider them legitimate grounds for violence.
 * While two of the pro-deletion editors phrased their objections in an NPOV way (though the primary of them was not commenting for most of the later portion after I began extensive overhaul), the two most vociferous complainants made a number of strongly POV comments during the discussion, which I submit indicates that a portion of their opposition was against the idea of Shiism being criticised, rather than legitimate objections to sourcing, notability, etc. Following are a few of the more clearly POV quotes:
 * "Both were sentenced to death by uneducated foolish Mullahs of their time (Christians and Sunnis)... It's clear who must be criticized in this matter."
 * "Now, when such people can have divine relation, but Fatima can't?Sunnis must criticize Quran and their books prior to criticizing Shia."
 * "You mention the case of Shia negative view on some of Muhammad's companions. I wonder how much you know about these companions? They were among greatest criminals of the Human's history" (said of major religious figures revered by the Sunni Muslim majority)
 * Note also that these two editors continued to make sectarian arguments that had nothing to do with the article itself, but instead debated whether the Sunni should criticise the Shia, not whether it is a fact that they do. They also engaged in some very evasive reasoning, including rejecting every single reference: books written by Sunni were "accusing, not criticising", books by Shi'a were "not criticism, how can he criticise himself?" and books by non-Muslim academics were "he's not criticising, he's just describing others' criticism".  Complainants refused to be nailed down as to exactly what sort of sourcing they'd like to see to prove the, relatively inarguable and quite notable in global politics, fact that "Sunnis criticise aspects of Shia Islam."

Those are the basic wave-tops of my concerns. Fundamentally, I feel that though the intial concerns over the article were quite valid, I improved the article substantially since arriving halfway through the argument. However, two editors who expressed strong and inappropriate POV continued to vocally oppose the article regardless of how I worked to address their concerns. I submit that the topic is highly notable and helps to explain the perspective differences between two major sects of Islam, that the footnoting is pretty solid for a developing article, and that the tone of the article makes it abundantly clear that it is describing criticisms leveled at the Shia rather than endorsing said criticisms.

Thanks for your time and any input. MatthewVanitas (talk) 02:07, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * There was still a well considered delete vote after you noted you had improved the article and DGG is a pretty good touchstone on these kinds of things, but this was a reasonable request and there is never harm in further discussion so I have undeleted and relisted this for further discussion. Perhaps you would be kind enough to notify participants that I have done this and invite themto review their votes based on your improvements. Ta. (Note: this would not be canvassing as its a reasonable request to ask someone if their vote has been swayed by an improvement and they have already participated) Spartaz Humbug! 11:27, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * User Spartaz, I, as one of the strong defender of deletion changed my opinion and we (me and Mathew) decided to improve the article.--Aliwiki (talk) 16:00, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

You missed one
I noticed in my watchlist that you were removing backlinks to this article, however, the article has not been deleted yet. I also see now that it's been merged with another, after reading the afd. Rather than revert you, I'm alerting you here, just in case you forgot one.— Dæ dαlus + Contribs 11:15, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Script stalled. I'm also closing th hardy boys one and that's 100 deletions... so its slowing down my twinkle a bit. I got it now. Spartaz Humbug! 11:20, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Deletion review/Log/2010 December 8
Hi Spartaz. Would you courtesy blank Deletion review/Log/2010 December 8? The accusations by the nominator against the subject fall afoul of BLP. Cunard (talk) 11:46, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ Spartaz Humbug! 11:53, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Cunard (talk) 11:56, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

AFD on General Mayhem
I'm a bit concerned about this result. There was most certainly not enough discussion there or response to fairly consider that any sort of consensus for delete. I mean, I don't disagree with the outcome; General Mayhem likely does *not* meet the notability requirements. But this was a very, very deficient AFD that should not have been closed as anything but no consensus. Vertigo Acid (talk) 17:05, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Bigboards numbers are completely irrelevant to assessing notability which is generally founded on the presence of independent secondary reliable sources. The two votes that references bigboards were not founded in policy and therefore carried very little weight while the delete votes were clearly policy founded by citing the lack of references. Therefore the outcome was clear. We don't count heads when we close discussion but measure the arguments against policy so a majoririty of weak non-policy based arguments do not prevail against well argued deletion votes that specifically reference policy. In this case the votes were evenly cast but only 1 side was arguing notability from a policy perspective. Spartaz Humbug! 17:14, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * But there was only one comment, one keep, and one delete. That's not consensus, even if you give the comment and keep absolutely no weight. I realize WP is not a democracy, but the AFD did not have enough discussion to warrant closing it. I will be taking this to deletion review.Vertigo Acid (talk) 20:55, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you have any sources at all? Spartaz Humbug! 05:00, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

please reconsider deletion of Howard Bloom
Could you please examine the following sources and reconsider the deletion of your page on me. Thanks for your efforts--Howard

Panel on the future of the Web, Demo 2008, San Diego. Howard Bloom with Head of R&D for Google Peter Norvig, head of Yahoo Labs Prabhakar Raghavan, Evangelist for Microsoft Jon Udell, and host, Nova Spivak http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nA0uaOnu8Q4

Foundation For the Future, Energy Challenges: The Next Thousand Years, Executive Summary, Bellevue, Washington • March 30 – April 1, 2007 Howard Bloom reports to the plenary on the conclusions of http://www.futurefoundation.org/documents/HUM_ExecSum_EnergyChallenges_Web.pdf [This conference included participants from NASA, Oxford University, Europe’s International Clean Energy Consortium, the German Space Power Association, Martin I. Hoffert, the creator of the equations that predicted global warming, George Mueller, who ran the Apollo Manned Space Flight Program that landed the first men on the moon, and Eric Chaisson, writer of the leading textbook on astronomy in the United States. It was based on a lecture I gave at a Space Frontier Foundation conference in 2006.]

“KRAMER [Peter Kramer, author of Listening to Prozac, former Marshall Scholar and faculty member of Brown Medical School]: It's clear that our culture is obsessed with fame. Consider Life Styles of the Rich and Famous, American Idol and the broad popularity of magazines such as People and Vanity Fair. Is the celebrity phenomenon a recent one limited to our own lime? We turn for answers to Howard Bloom who has studied pop culture from a historical vantage Bloom has been in the business of star making himself, helping to launch the careers of musicians such as Prince and ZZ Top. Bloom is currently a visiting scholar in the graduate psychology department at New York University and he's authored several books including Global Brain: The Evolution of Mass Mind from ihe Big Bang to the Twenty-first Century. Howard Bloom, welcome lo THE INFINITE MIND.” Fame, an episode of The Infinite Mind, produced by Lichtenstein Creative Media, radio show syndicated on 220 public broadcasting stations, http://books.google.com/books?id=3a4YdgdVOoYC&pg=PA3&dq=%22howard+bloom%22&hl=en&ei=yO4GTcuhKYL68Aa1qMjOCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&ved=0CE8Q6AEwCTgK#v=onepage&q=%22howard%20bloom%22&f=false

biblio—scholarly publications

“The Big Burp and the Multi-Planetary Mandate,” in Cosmos and Culture: Cultural Evolution in a Cosmic Context, ed. Steven J. Dick and Mark Lupisella, NASA, Washington, D.C., 2010: Government Printing Office, NASA SP-2009-4802 (includes chapters by intellectual superstars like philosopher of the mind Daniel Dennett, cosmologist and theoretical physicist Paul Davies, evolutionary biologist and memeticist Susan Blackmore, SETI Institute Chief Astronomer Seth Shostak, founder of Big History David Christian, author of the world's leading astronomy textbook astrophysicist Eric Chaisson, and the book's editor, former NASA Chief Historian Steven J. Dick.) http://bookstore.gpo.gov/actions/GetPublication.do?stocknumber=033-000-01318-3 free copies: http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4802.pdf

Howard Bloom. "The Xerox Effect: On the Importance of Pre-biotic Evolution." PhysicaPlus--Online Magazine of the Israel Physical Society, Issue No. 3, January 10, 2004. http://physicaplus.org.il/zope/home/en/3/mabat_bloom_en

Howard Bloom. "Beyond the Supercomputer: Social Groups as Self invention Machines." In Research in Biopolitics, Volume 6, 1998.: Sociobiology and Biopolitics. Edited by Albert Somit and Steven A Peterson. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press Inc., 1998: 43-64.

Pavel V. Kurakin, George G. Malinetskii, and Howard Bloom. “Conversation (dialog) model of quantum transitions,” Arxiv.org http://arxiv.org/ftp/quant-ph/papers/0504/0504088.pdf

Howard Bloom. "Instant Evolution: The Influence of the City on Human Genes," New Ideas In Psychology, September 13, 2001, linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0732118X01000046

Howard Bloom. "Manifesto for a New Psychological Science." ASCAP Across Species Comparisons and Psychopathology. Vol. 10, No. 7, July 1997: 20 21, 27.

Howard Bloom. "A History of the Global Brain Creative Nets in the Pre Cambrian Age." ASCAP Across Species Comparisons and Psychopathology. Vol 10, No.3, March 1997: 7 11.

Howard Bloom. “Metaphor of the Automobile Clutch for Thalamus & Striatum.” ASCAP Across Species Comparisons and Psychopathology. Vol 12, No.12, December 1999: 14.

Howard Bloom. “Outside the Body.” ASCAP Across Species Comparisons and Psychopathology. Vol 13, No.1, January 2000: 23-24.

About Bloom:

Isabelle Hennebelle and Emmanuel Lechypre. "Capitalism Must Reconnect with its Messianic Role/" (Le capitalisme doit renouer avec son rôle messianique)L'Expansion, 5/28'2009 http://www.lexpansion.com/economie/actualite-economique/le-capitalisme-doit-renouer-avec-son-role-messianique_182052.html L'Expansion, the French business magazine, calls Bloom a "specialist in mass behavior" and "a devotee of cosmology, theoretical physics and microbiology"

Nando Pelusi. "Howard Bloom--Profession: Omniverous Intellectual." Psychology Today http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/pto-20080118-000002.html

“In our first Disinformation' anthology. You Are Being Lied To (Russ Kick, editor), I wrote the following about Howard Bloom: "I have met God and he lives in Brooklyn... Howard Bloom is the next in a lineage of seminal thinkers that includes Newton. Darwin, Freud, and Buckminster Fuller." When I intro- duced him on television [Channel 4 TV, Britain-- I added that I could try to convince you of that statement but that "Howard can probably do a better job of convincing you himself," which is true —his arsenal of expression is extraordinary, a marvel to behold- but why take my word for it. or his? Here’s what others have said about Howard Bloom…” Richard Metzger. You Are Being Lied To (book). The Disinformation Company, 2002 http://books.google.com/books?id=cQr-ZucmGpAC&pg=PA24&dq=%22howard+bloom%22&hl=en&ei=luQGTaCoNYHGlQeXuLTaDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CDgQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=%22howard%20bloom%22&f=false

Richard Metzger, “I have met God and he lives in Brooklyn,” in Russell Kick, editor, You Are Being Lied To: The Disinformation Guide to Media Distortion, The Disinformation Company, 2001. http://books.google.com/books?id=KALsz08ijnkC&pg=PT350&dq=%22howard+bloom%22&hl=en&ei=luQGTaCoNYHGlQeXuLTaDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8&ved=0CEgQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=%22howard%20bloom%22&f=false reprinted at http://old.disinfo.com/archive/pages/article/id672/pg1/index.html

Patrice Adcroft, Howard Bloom's journey to the heart of darkness in The Lucifer Principle, Spin Magazine, February 1995. http://books.google.com/books?id=oJSpnH7TRHsC&pg=PA86&dq=%22howard+bloom%22&hl=en&ei=yO4GTcuhKYL68Aa1qMjOCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAjgK#v=onepage&q=%22howard%20bloom%22&f=false

http://www.automatesintelligents.com/biblionet/2002/fev/principe.html lucifer principle review http://www.automatesintelligents.com/biblionet/2002/mar/bloom.html global brain review http://www.admiroutes.asso.fr/larevue/2009/100/bloom.htm genius of the beast review, automates intelligents http://www.admiroutes.asso.fr/larevue/2009/100/interviewbloom.htm interview re Genius of the Beast http://www.admiroutes.asso.fr/larevue/2009/101/creation.htm article on creativity that uses the principles of the Genius of the Beast Jean Paul Baquiast—Automates Intelligents 10-28-2009

Jon Udell. "Howard Bloom: The Global Brain." IT Conversations http://itc.conversationsnetwork.org/shows/detail3836.html

David Houle. Howard Bloom on the Future of Energy: Turn Poisons Into Pleasure and Excrement Into Energy, ScientificBlogging 9/6/2007 09-26-2009 http://www.scientificblogging.com/david_houle/howard_bloom_on_the_future_of_energy_turn_poisons_into_pleasure_and_excrement_into_energy

http://rushkoff.com/videoaudio/howard-bloom/ =Rushkoff bloom debate

http://itc.conversationsnetwork.org/shows/detail3836.html --Jon Udell interview 10-06-2008 Jon Udell. "Howard Bloom: The Global Brain." IT Conversations

“Grave New World” by Mary Block, Heeb Magazine—Bloom feature http://www.heebmagazine.com/blog/view/2310

“As part of its new strategy, Styx was now going to court the media for the first time. Derek [Sutton, Styx’ manager] hired Howard Bloom to work with the band. Bloom was already one of the most successful publicists of his genera- tion, a star maker whose client list was a Who's Who of rock and roll. Bloom had nothing in common with the stereotypical rock and roll pub- licist; his background was in sociology, and his interest in rock and roll had more to do with the study of mass psychology in action than fur- thering the aggrandizement of spoiled rock stars. He approached PR as an applied science. Derek Sutton: Howard Bloom was probably the greatest press agent that rock and roll has ever known. He was and still is one of the smartest human beings on the planet, and he chose for some ungodly reason to make his living in rock and roll.“ Sterling Whitaker, The Grand Delusion: The Unauthorized True Story of Styx Booksurge, 2006 http://books.google.com/books?id=39mrwdXo71YC&pg=PA153&dq=%22howard+bloom%22&hl=en&ei=luQGTaCoNYHGlQeXuLTaDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9&ved=0CE0Q6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=%22howard%20bloom%22&f=false

By the time he appeared at the April 18, 1980, Independence Day ceremonies in Zimbabwe, Bob Marley knew he was doomed, but he wanted to keep it secret for as long as was humanly possible. When Bob returned from Africa, a meeting was held in May 1980 at the midtown Manhattan offices of Inner City Broadcasting (ICB), the powerful communications company that controlled WLIB and WBLS, the two most important black stations in the New York metropolitan area and programming trend-setters for black stations nationwide. Seated around the long table in the conference room were Chris Blackwell, Danny Sims, star WBLS DJ Frankie Crocker, prom- inent press and public relations man Howard Bloom, and a dozen other top executives from various parts of the radio and record indus- tries. The purpose of the summit was to discuss how best to break the Waiters' new LP, Uprising, in the black American radio and record market, where reggae had traditionally been a tough sell. Timothy White, Catch a fire: the life of Bob Marley, MacMillan, 2006. http://books.google.com/books?id=h4nfr2cYAMQC&pg=PA305&dq=%22howard+bloom%22+marley&hl=en&ei=EOkGTYOTA8b_lgf0naSoDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAg#v=snippet&q=bloom&f=false

"I asked Prince what he planned to do. He told me, 'I'm going to look for the ladder.'" Puzzled by the comments, Fargnoli continued, "So I asked him what that meant. All he said was, 'Sometimes it snows in April.'" When questioned about the meaning of the comments, Harriette Vidal, a public rela- tions person for Prince at the Howard Bloom Organization in New York, said, "Who knows what that means. That's just Prince. Probably everything you think it means, it means, she said.” Prince: Will He Ever Tour Again? in Jet Magazine, April 29, 1985. http://books.google.com/books?id=orADAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA16&dq=%22howard+bloom%22+prince&hl=en&ei=GusGTfyOCMqr8AbJhcnZCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CDYQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=%22howard%20bloom%22%20prince&f=false

Howard's roster of clients grew huge, including Prince and Michael Jackson, but no one touched his soul the way John Mellencamp did. The former science nerd became besotted with the brooding Indiana greaser. Decades after the fact, Howard recalled with a rhapsodic look on his face the first time he heard Mellencamp's song "Hurt So Good" on the radio. "I literally drove my car to the curb on Sunset Strip in Los Angeles and waited until it was over to resume driving." Danny Goldberg, Bumping Into Geniuses: My Life Inside the Rock and Roll Business, Penguin, 2009. http://books.google.com/books?id=Bh_qQxyMmPIC&pg=PT68&dq=%22howard+bloom+organization%22&hl=en&ei=pewGTfquLoSq8Aaq3fy5Dw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=%22howard%20bloom%20organization%22&f=false

"As founder of one of the most successful public-relations firms in the rock-music business, Howard Bloom..." feature on Bloom’s home—with a living room converted to an office and tons of early electronica--as the ultimate information processing center, Stereo Review, Volume 50, Issues 3-6; Volume 1, 1985 http://books.google.com/books?ei=pewGTfquLoSq8Aaq3fy5Dw&ct=result&id=jXEJAQAAMAAJ&dq=%22howard+bloom+organization%22&q=bloom#search_anchor

If you need more, please tell me. This is a very small sample. Thanks, Howard Bloom — Preceding unsigned comment added by Howbloom (talk • contribs) 03:21, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Further Corroborating Sources for Howard Bloom Article
For further archived references to the work Howard Bloom Organization performed during the 80s, please do a basic Google News Archive search here, which highlights the organization's work with Prince, the Jacksons and Mellencamp. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=howard+bloom&sa=N&tbs=nws:1,ar:1#sclient=psy&hl=en&safe=off&tbs=nws:1%2Ccdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A1970%2Ccd_max%3A1990&q=howard+bloom+organization&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&pbx=1&fp=1&cad=b

I am independently affiliated from the author himself, and would be happy to help compile a re-instated article with above references and additional initial secondary sources seen in the Google News search. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.255.115 (talk) 16:46, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

This is too long and indiscriminate to parse easily. To make the review quicker and more sensible for me, please can you indicate the two or three best sources about Howard Bloom and I will review them. Ta. Spartaz Humbug! 17:43, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

SHORT references for Howard Bloom article
Spartan, thanks for your consideration. Here are three references:

Nando Pelusi. "Howard Bloom--Profession: Omniverous Intellectual." Psychology Today http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/pto-20080118-000002.html

“In our first Disinformation' anthology. You Are Being Lied To (Russ Kick, editor), I wrote the following about Howard Bloom: "I have met God and he lives in Brooklyn... Howard Bloom is the next in a lineage of seminal thinkers that includes Newton. Darwin, Freud, and Buckminster Fuller." When I intro- duced him on television [Channel 4 TV, Britain-- I added that I could try to convince you of that statement but that "Howard can probably do a better job of convincing you himself," which is true —his arsenal of expression is extraordinary, a marvel to behold- but why take my word for it. or his? Here’s what others have said about Howard Bloom…” Richard Metzger. You Are Being Lied To (book). The Disinformation Company, 2002 http://books.google.com/books?id=cQr-ZucmGpAC&pg=PA24&dq=%22howard+bloom%22&hl=en&ei=luQGTaCoNYHGlQeXuLTaDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CDgQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=%22howard%20bloom%22&f=false

for credibility: The New Yorker "According to Howard Bloom, the Web is moving us toward a worldwide integration of minds, but this confluence is only the most recent step in a process that started with the Big Bang. In GLOBAL BRAIN (Wiley), Bloom argues that ever since the first neutron courted the first proton, our universe has been governed by the impulse to congregate. Evolution, he says, means fierce competition, though not so much between individuals as between groups with different "problem-solving webs." And human beings are very much a part of the game. For those who worry that our ingenuity has upset nature's equilibrium, Bloom has a message that is both reassuring and sobering. "We are nature incarnate," he writes. "We are tools of her probings and if, indeed, we suffer and we fail, from our lessons she will learn which way in the future not to turn."" Read more http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2001/12/24/011224crbc_GOAT_bookcur — Preceding unsigned comment added by Howbloom (talk • contribs) 02:09, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The first two are interviews so count as primary rather then secondary and the third is a passing mention in the context of something else. What would really help would be a profile or an article specifically about Howard Bloom that isn't in his own words. Does anything you found match that? Spartaz Humbug! 02:47, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Features re Howard Bloom
Patrice Adcroft, Howard Bloom's journey to the heart of darkness in The Lucifer Principle, Spin Magazine, February 1995. http://books.google.com/books?id=oJSpnH7TRHsC&pg=PA86&dq=%22howard+bloom%22&hl=en&ei=yO4GTcuhKYL68Aa1qMjOCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAjgK#v=onepage&q=%22howard%20bloom%22&f=false

Or if in a pinch, a feature from Les Automates Intelligentes, a small French publication edited by Jean Paul Baquiast of L'Institut d'Etudes Politiques de Paris, DES de Droit Public et d'Economie Politique(http://www.admiroutes.asso.fr/larevue/2009/100/bloom.htm). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Howbloom (talk • contribs) 07:17, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

The rest all seem to be interviews. Or the bios put up by two of the groups on whose boards I sit--The National Space Society (http://www.nss.org/about/bios/bloom.html) and The Lifeboat Foundation (https://lifeboat.com/ex/bios.howard.bloom).

Thanks again for the time you are taking.


 * 1 is probably OK. Can you confirm if 2 is an extract from a published scientific journal? 3 is nothing close to what we require. Spartaz Humbug! 12:48, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Number two is a small publication. See (http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automates_Intelligents). Its credibility comes from its founder and editor, Jean Paul Baquiast (http://www.jean-paul-baquiast.fr/ouvrages.html), of Institut d'Etudes Politiques de Paris, DES de Droit Public et d'Economie Politique. Baquiast is the author of eleven books. He put together a government program for Charles de Gaulle in the early 1970s to emulate an American technology being developed by IBM, the modern computer. You also raised another important question--whether I have any significance beyond published books. For the impact of one of my books in Dubai, see this article by Mohammed bin Ali al Alabbar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed_bin_Ali_Al_Abbar), senior aide to Dubai's ruler--Shaikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum--and former Director-General of Dubai's Department of Economic Development "I’d like to share with you something from a book, The Genius of the Beast: a Radical Re-Vision of Capitalism, by Howard Bloom, that so resonated with me that I passed it on to His Highness Shaikh Mohammed." (http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticle09.asp?xfile=data/business/2010/November/business_November702.xml&section=business) Thanks again--Howard  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Howbloom (talk • contribs) 02:28, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It was source 2 I really needed clarification on. Spartaz Humbug! 03:12, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Number one is a small feature from Spin Magazine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spin_(magazine)). The author is Patrice Adcroft, former editor of Omni Magazine. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omni_Magazine). Howard Bloom — Preceding unsigned comment added by Howbloom (talk • contribs) — Howbloom (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Wikipedia-standard verifiable material on Howard Bloom
Here are sources that meet the criteria for verifiability outlined in (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:V). The sources include: The New Yorker, Stereo Review, Jet Magazine, MacMillan Publishing, and Penguin Books. Please let me know your thoughts.

By the time he appeared at the April 18, 1980, Independence Day ceremonies in Zimbabwe, Bob Marley knew he was doomed, but he wanted to keep it secret for as long as was humanly possible. When Bob returned from Africa, a meeting was held in May 1980 at the midtown Manhattan offices of Inner City Broadcasting (ICB), the powerful communications company that controlled WLIB and WBLS, the two most important black stations in the New York metropolitan area and programming trend-setters for black stations nationwide. Seated around the long table in the conference room were Chris Blackwell, Danny Sims, star WBLS DJ Frankie Crocker, prom- inent press and public relations man Howard Bloom, and a dozen other top executives from various parts of the radio and record indus- tries. The purpose of the summit was to discuss how best to break the Waiters' new LP, Uprising, in the black American radio and record market, where reggae had traditionally been a tough sell. Timothy White, Catch a fire: the life of Bob Marley, MacMillan, 2006. http://books.google.com/books?id=h4nfr2cYAMQC&pg=PA305&dq=%22howard+bloom%22+marley&hl=en&ei=EOkGTYOTA8b_lgf0naSoDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAg#v=snippet&q=bloom&f=false

The New Yorker According to Howard Bloom, the Web is moving us toward a worldwide integration of minds, but this confluence is only the most recent step in a process that started with the Big Bang. In GLOBAL BRAIN (Wiley), Bloom argues that ever since the first neutron courted the first proton, our universe has been governed by the impulse to congregate. Evolution, he says, means fierce competition, though not so much between individuals as between groups with different "problem-solving webs." And human beings are very much a part of the game. For those who worry that our ingenuity has upset nature's equilibrium, Bloom has a message that is both reassuring and sobering. "We are nature incarnate," he writes. "We are tools of her probings and if, indeed, we suffer and we fail, from our lessons she will learn which way in the future not to turn." Read more http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2001/12/24/011224crbc_GOAT_bookcur

"I asked Prince what he planned to do. He told me, 'I'm going to look for the ladder.'" Puzzled by the comments, Fargnoli continued, "So I asked him what that meant. All he said was, 'Sometimes it snows in April.'" When questioned about the meaning of the comments, Harriette Vidal, a public rela- tions person for Prince at the Howard Bloom Organization in New York, said, "Who knows what that means. That's just Prince. Probably everything you think it means, it means, she said.” Prince: Will He Ever Tour Again? in Jet Magazine, April 29, 1985. http://books.google.com/books?id=orADAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA16&dq=%22howard+bloom%22+prince&hl=en&ei=GusGTfyOCMqr8AbJhcnZCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CDYQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=%22howard%20bloom%22%20prince&f=false

Howard's roster of clients grew huge, including Prince and Michael Jackson, but no one touched his soul the way John Mellencamp did. The former science nerd became besotted with the brooding Indiana greaser. Decades after the fact, Howard recalled with a rhapsodic look on his face the first time he heard Mellencamp's song "Hurt So Good" on the radio. "I literally drove my car to the curb on Sunset Strip in Los Angeles and waited until it was over to resume driving." Danny Goldberg, Bumping Into Geniuses: My Life Inside the Rock and Roll Business, Penguin, 2009. http://books.google.com/books?id=Bh_qQxyMmPIC&pg=PT68&dq=%22howard+bloom+organization%22&hl=en&ei=pewGTfquLoSq8Aaq3fy5Dw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=%22howard%20bloom%20organization%22&f=false

"As founder of one of the most successful public-relations firms in the rock-music business, Howard Bloom..." feature on Bloom’s home—with a living room converted to an office and tons of early electronica--as the ultimate information processing center, Stereo Review, Volume 50, Issues 3-6; Volume 1, 1985 http://books.google.com/books?ei=pewGTfquLoSq8Aaq3fy5Dw&ct=result&id=jXEJAQAAMAAJ&dq=%22howard+bloom+organization%22&q=bloom#search_anchor

Patrice Adcroft, Howard Bloom's journey to the heart of darkness in The Lucifer Principle, Spin Magazine, February 1995. http://books.google.com/books?id=oJSpnH7TRHsC&pg=PA86&dq=%22howard+bloom%22&hl=en&ei=yO4GTcuhKYL68Aa1qMjOCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAjgK#v=onepage&q=%22howard%20bloom%22&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by Howbloom (talk • contribs) 22:50, 27 December 2010 (UTC) has there been time to get to this? may you have a good new year. Howbloom (talk) 02:36, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry for not responding earlier but I think I need to study this lot more carefully then I have time for. I'll try to respond in the next couple of days. Spartaz Humbug! 19:49, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
Don't forget to block us all next time! Petrb (talk) 16:07, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure :-/ How long would you like to be blocked for? I see from Jimbo's page that there is actually more to this then at first sight. I can't say I'm surprised. Spartaz Humbug! 12:50, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

My signature
Hello. You have made a comment in my talk page declaring that my user signature "is impossible to read". I have had no complaints from any other users, and people are easily able to read my signature. What is it that you see when you read my signature? Uncensored Kiwi  Kiss 06:20, 19 December 2010 (UTC) (Uncensored Kiwi)
 * Fixed.  Uncensored Kiwi  Talk 09:04, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * yes that's better but on my home PC it was too small to read the text. @@@@

Sally Jaxx
Hi,

I was surprised today to find that this page had been deleted. I feel that the AfD procedure was not correctly followed. The page was not tagged and I had zero idea that it was in AfD despite the fact that I did a fair amount of work to it around the time it was nominated. What do we do??? --Trappedinburnley (talk) 12:25, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm usually a bot checks that kind of thing but its clearly incorrect so we need to void the AFD and start again. I'll undelete it after I finish cooking tea and putting the kids to bed tonight. Spartaz Humbug! 14:43, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * There, that AFD has been voided and I have relisted it for further discussion. It is now properly tagged. Thank you for drawing this to my attention. Spartaz Humbug! 16:24, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Lengths_of_science_fiction_film_and_television_series
Hi there!

I was externally linked recently to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lengths_of_science_fiction_film_and_television_series, (a redirect to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_science_fiction_film_and_television_series_by_lengths&action=edit&redlink=1). It's a page I remember reading long ago. Okay, it's been deleted - but do you know where I can get an old version of it?

Thanks, Kimpire (talk) 13:42, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I can userfy it for you if you like. Spartaz Humbug! 16:26, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Jim Thornton
Back in April, looks like you screwed up. The AFD was for Jim Thornton (Politician), not Jim Thornton. You ended up redirecting the latter, which is actually about a completely unrelated radio host/game show announcer, instead of the former. I've restored Jim Thornton to an article on the radio guy. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 01:21, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * in fairness the AFD was incorrectly named which is what confused my script. Do you think we need to rerun the AFD? Spartaz Humbug! 03:10, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * No, the politician was properly redirected and I've restored the Jim Thornton article to be about the radio personality, so everything's where it should be now. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 04:06, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Canada–Tonga relations
Hi, Spartaz! I'm afraid I feel inclined to challenge your closure of Articles for deletion/Canada–Tonga relations, but would naturally like to give you a chance to justify and/or change your decision. The debate was relisted after seven days with a note reading, "consensus split, pointless NCing this one." I would agree that there was neither any consensus to keep nor any to delete at that point. Since then, there were five further 'keep' arguments (one of which I presume you discounted as per WP:JUSTAVOTE, and rightly so) and three further 'delete' arguments. Of course voting plays no part in things but I do not think it could be said that those eight additional comments – nor the discussion they prompted – provided the overall debate with a consensus to delete the article. In particular, some of the 'delete' arguments were spurious in the extreme, and there were strong elements of proof by assertion (you may well say that the opposing side also used such devices, and I might agree with that, but this would only strengthen the case for a 'no consensus' finding) including, "It's really not my problem if people choose to ignore the clear wording of WP:NOTE," "You act as if those links you've provided are substantial, when they are not," "Sources exist but you can't find them? pathetic," a statement that sources are only valid if they are available free online, a hint that sources covering more than one topic were unacceptable even if they contained relevant content, a suggestion that a proposed reference was invalid because none of the chapters were entitled 'Canada Tonga relations' and even a copy-pasted deletion vote  – and note I didn't say, "copy-pasted deletion vote." I look forward to reading your response! ╟─TreasuryTag► cabinet ─╢ 14:34, 23 December 2010 (UTC) Hi. I was wondering, could you userfy the last version of Canada–Tonga relations at User:Cdogsimmons/Canada–Tonga relations for me so I could continue to work on it pending the outcome of the DRV? Thanks. Regards.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 16:23, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but I think you need to work on your winning people over skills. There was a lot of chatter on the sources and many per sources votes but the analysis by Hrafn wasn't rebutted and the sourcing didn't pass muster. My view is that this fell within the closing admin's discretion range and I felt it was a delete. By all means take it to DRV but you know that views on these articles are hopelessly split and its highly unlikely you can muster a consensus to overturn this. By the way, have you read the book you were quoting in the AFD? Spartaz Humbug! 14:48, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank your for your response, and I will indeed be taking this to DRV, so please consider this your pre-emptive notice. With regards to the book, I'm not clear which one you're referring to, but I clearly and honestly specified in the AfD which sources I had managed to get hold of in full and which I had not. ╟─TreasuryTag► directorate ─╢ 14:51, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Jolly good. See you there. Spartaz Humbug! 14:57, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * cough* deletion endorsed *cough* Spartaz Humbug! 09:43, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * On second thoughts, I should perhaps add the words, "...and believe me it wasn't through lack of trying!" at the end of my previous comment... :P ╟─TreasuryTag► Africa, Asia and the UN ─╢ 14:58, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * If the DRV goes against you and you find the book later or can find some more sources then I'd be happy to review the close on new information. Spartaz Humbug! 15:20, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ Spartaz Humbug! 05:25, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thnx.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 23:36, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

WMC
Well played. Restoring a section of his talk page that he had just deleted, so as to provoke him further, is not something I would have thought of. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:36, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually that was a mistake. I have been a staunch supporter of WMC in the past - see RFAR/Abd vs WMC and I think some of you guys need to grow some AGF. Spartaz Humbug! 16:54, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I used to AGF. But years of experience with Wikipedia has taught me that it is more realistic to assume that everyone here is acting from an ulterior motive or hidden agenda, from Jimbo on down. In sum, this definition of AGF is more accurate than the "official" one. If your edit was, indeed, an honest mistake please accept my apologies. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:01, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It was an honest mistake and I have spoken against the 1 week block at ANI. I am not amused. WMC is entitled to blow up when he gets blocked but the rest of you contribute to the battleground when you don't do your fact finding prior to passing judgement. Spartaz Humbug! 17:04, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't like bullfights. Seeing a person treated this way appalls me. (See User:Geogre/Comic.) Jehochman Talk 18:15, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't understand this comment. Spartaz Humbug! 18:34, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I have never been to a bullfight, though I understand there is a long ritual where the bull is goaded with a red flag, and then stabbed a bunch of times, and finally slaughtered. We should never do anything analogous to this to any of our users, no matter what. Jehochman Talk 18:43, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm hardly going to disagree with this but I'm really confused how this applies here? I could hardly have ignored the comment when it flashed up on my watchlist. I could have blocked for much longer but that seems hardly proportionate. WMC would have known when he made it that his comment was provocative and was going to get him into hot water. If I ever told another editor to fuck off or referred to them as a piece of the female anatomy then I would expect a block and would not complain if I got one. I chose the shortest block possible commensurate with an appropriate response to the comment. The fact that the deleted section was restored is regrettable but was not intentional. I have already explained that.
 * You seem oblivious to the impact of your own actions on other editors but are unable to stop focussing on the impact of mine. That's not right. Did you really think calling me a troll was going to help me calm down when I was clearly upset by your comments to me on ANI? Whether or not you accept that I was right to be upset, I clearly was, but you deliberately provoked me further by calling me a troll. What on earth were you thinking? Spartaz Humbug! 18:54, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, I believe you. Please accept my own apologies for having jumped to conclusions instead of letting the facts unfold. To expand on this a bit, people have different ideas of what words cross the line. I've noticed WMC doesn't hesitate to use "twat" (in mixed company, no less) and yet he bowdlerizes "cr*p" thus, a word that is considered very mild where I live. So people took a trivial incident and turned it into a big brouhaha, with ScottMac in particular taking advantage of the opportunity to stir the pot. Just another day on Wikipedia. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:01, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * My view is that WMC should have been allowed to vent in peace on his talk page. I certainly don't agree with the block being extended on behalf of further insults in my direction. Admins should have a thick enough skin to shrug off venting. Spartaz Humbug! 19:07, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Appreciations
Thank you for the close of Articles for deletion/Es leuchten die Sterne. Creating the new article on the proper topic was a treat. Merry Christmas.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 07:29, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Forwarded email from OTRS to unblock
See. I responded saying I couldn't understand why anyone would threaten someone over the lack of email replies and blue links, but we've been told not to respond again as this is with the WMF. Dougweller (talk) 08:57, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Glad I didn't respond then... Thanks for the heads up. Spartaz Humbug! 14:12, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Marek Rychlik
In regards to WP:Articles for deletion/Marek Rychlik, may I ask you to delete Marek R. Rychlik? Also, since Rychlik's theorem is a misnomer, it would be good if you could delete equichordal point problem (the redirect), then rename Rychlik's theorem to equichordal point problem, and finally delete Rychlik's theorem. Thanks! Nageh (talk) 14:01, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Is there a consensus for the move?? I would be happy to do this if there is already agreement. I'm not keen in deleting redirects as they really do no harm.. Spartaz Humbug! 19:46, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I would say so. See the deletion discussion and the discussion at the Maths Wikiproject talk page. I can ask for votes if you insist, but I think it's pointless. Also, I have prepared the article for the move with my recent edits. Let me know what you think. Nageh (talk) 20:07, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * let me look at this tomorrow, its bedtime here. OK? Spartaz Humbug! 21:13, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Never mind. Nageh (talk) 10:36, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of iPad 2
Given its related content can you restore it before creating the redirect? It might well be useful content after the release of the iPad 2. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 18:11, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ Spartaz Humbug! 19:43, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

List of Underground Press Syndicate members
Hello, Could you please userfy this deleted content for me. Perhaps I will create a category including the notable publications on the list. Any other suggestions would be welcomed. Thanks. Cullen328 (talk) 18:48, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ User:Cullen328/List of Underground Press Syndicate members Spartaz Humbug! 19:25, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

iPad 2
I would like you to restore iPad 2 to my userspace. Thank you. Marcus Qwertyus   21:14, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Marcus, if you see 2 sections above I was requested to restore the history in mainspace and since the redirect has been protected I don't see any harm in doing that so the content can all be found in the history of the redirect. I hope that is OK. Spartaz Humbug! 19:45, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure. Marcus <font color="#CC7722" face="font-family: 'Maiandra GD', sans-serif;">Qwertyus   19:50, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Deletion review
Have read your page on why you delete pages but I still think should not have been deleted. The allegations, arrests and controversy were covered in major media satisfying notability and the vote for deletion was tied at 4-4. Contacting you first before taking it here:. 209.49.208.130 (talk) 12:47, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:FORK The keep arguments was that this was sourced but the delete arguments concerning POV forking were not addressed and if the material is already covered elsewhere we really do not need to keep this. Spartaz Humbug! 14:49, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:FORK is not about this situation, please click the link and check. I assume you mean WP:CFORK? Where is the same subject material covered elsewhere? 9/11 conspiracy theories and art student scam are different articles on different subjects.

The following was not an appropriate keep argument:


 * Strong Delete. This was already deleted, I believe more than once. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Contacteeperson (talk • contribs) 19:51, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * No, it wasn't. I'm not sure where you're getting that information. Silver  seren C 01:00, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * So in fact the vote was 4-3 for keep. Your opinion on the value of the arguments is only your opinion. Please make an argument if you want to but do not delete an article that resulted from a discussion between a number of editors. 209.49.208.130 (talk) 20:38, 29 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Consensus is not a nose count and where did I say that that vote was an appropriate keep vote? I'm confused about that. Its not a valid argument for deletion and wouldn't have been weighty in the close. The issue was whether this was a POV fork of something already covered in a neutral way. Most of the keeps argued on notability and didn't really address the FORK issue. That's why the FORK issue wasn't refuted. Spartaz Humbug! 21:09, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Aware of that. The article was split off Art Student Scam, this decision resulted from a discussion among several editors working constructively in a hot topic area. Some were however determined to kill the article, as happens frequently with I-P articles. You have not indicated where this subject matter is covered elsewhere. What is next, should the matter now go to ? 209.49.208.130 (talk) 12:57, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Several AFD participants mentioned that the material was covered elesewhere. I suggest you speak to them to find out why. My role is to read the discussion and close by the consensus there not to research myself. That would give me personal opinions on the article and affect my neutrality. Spartaz Humbug! 04:29, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by your "role" aren't you an editor with admin privileges? Can you point me to where any special role you have is defined per policy? I contacted you, you say there was consensus but I don't see anything of the sort in the AfD, now what is the next step in reviewing the deletion? 209.49.208.130 (talk) 12:45, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * If you feel it was improperly closed and you have failed to convince the closing admin to reopen it, the next step is WP:DRV. But closing admins are generally given a lot of latitude in how they interpret AfD discussions, so convincing DRV that there was wrongdoing at the close will require careful and well-reasoned arguments that stick closely to policy. "I don't think it should have been deleted" or "the votes were too closely split between keep and delete" aren't going to be good enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:46, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Misfire at WP:UAA/BOT?
Was a misfire or did you disagree with my assessment? Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 20:30, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * er sorry that was a screw up, probably rested my cursor on the wrong spot on my watchlist. Apologies.:o Spartaz Humbug! 21:05, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem! Just wanted to make sure I hadn't done anything wrong without realizing!  Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 21:06, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Minako Hamano
I didn't see any consensus on deletion of this page in the discussion. Why did you go ahead and delete it? Pkeets (talk) 20:42, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The consensus was clearly that no-one was able to find a second source although many thought that sources might exist. I'll happily undelete the thing if you can find a second decent source. I already said that in the close. Otherwise its only got one decent source and therefore fails the GNG. That's why there was a consensus to delete. Spartaz Humbug! 21:12, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Consensus doesn't mean "decision"; it means "agreement", and I see nothing of that in the archived discussion. There is also no consensus that sources are completely unavilable; a comment by UltraExactZZ said that the subject appeared notable from the information available and that he/she would look for further references. Also, I didn't think the PROD expired if there was an ongoing discussion. Pkeets (talk) 21:21, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Stuff runs for seven days and gets closed. See WP:CONSENSUS for what it means round here -its not exactly an agreement but a rough assessment of whihc arguments are more policy based. asserting sources without providing them doesn't count for much - see WP:AADD. UltraExactZZ also said they couldn't find additional any sources - ergo only one source has been found. As I said I will undelete immediately if one more source is found - I don't think that's unreasonable... Spartaz Humbug! 03:04, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Dude. This was a horrible call. Delete, after a discussion with zero !votes? It should clearly have been a relist, in order to push at least one more editor into committing to an actual !vote. I don't disagree with the outcome here, but the process was all wrong. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:28, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not dude. AFDs are discussions not votes so the fact that no-one actually bolded anything is irrelevant. The discussion was pretty clear that there was only one source and that's not enough under the GNG. Its a BLP after all. It comes back immediately anyone finds another source and I'm happy ti userfy it if anyone asks but I'm not relisting a clear outcome because of an absence of bolding. Spartaz Humbug! 08:09, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You can be dude until you start making decisions in a way that leads me to actually respect your usage of administrative powers. The discussion consisted of: (1) some back-and-forth between the the nominator, who discounted the quality of the sources, and the page creator, who claimed that the article was referenced properly; (2) UltraExactZZ, who clearly was leaning to the keep side and claimed to be coming back later with more sources; (3) Phil Bridger, whose comment was scrupulously neutral about whether the article should be kept or deleted but who removed two existing sources as bad (and I completely agree with his removal). After Bridger's removal, the article was left with a single source (not counting the footnote linking to a wiki). It would be completely reasonable to conclude from the lack of sourcing that the article did not pass WP:GNG and should be deleted, but that was not the consensus of the discussion. If you came to that conclusion, you should not have deleted the article; you should have left a delete !vote. In general, the pattern I see of your closures is that you apply careful scrutiny to AfDs that lean towards a keep and you are very sloppy in accepting a "consensus" for the ones that lean to a delete. That is not the proper neutrality expected of an administrator. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:31, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm agree with your analysis of the discussion but completely disagree with your contention that this is not a consensus. The original sources were all debunked bar one and nearly everyone chipping in agreed it needed another source. Absent that source how could the close be anything other then failed to meet GNG/N = delete. I'm not looking for votes when I close a discussion I'm reading the arguments and seeing where that leaves us by policy. N was the basis of the nomination and the article manifestly failed it at the end. That's a reasonable close. Spartaz Humbug! 04:48, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Please re-read Closing discussions. As the closer, it is not your place to determine whether the sources were debunked and whether the article still meets WP:N. What you should be doing is winnowing out the non-policy-based or weakly justified opinions (such as the page creator's insistance that the article was already well sourced) and judging whether the remaining opinions form a rough agreement (or at least strong majority agreement) about which policy is applicable and whether the page meets that policy. But in this case there were no remaining opinions beyond the nominator's, so there was nothing left to judge. One person is not a consensus. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:13, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * We are done here. Spartaz Humbug! 10:26, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Armeniapedia.org
hi there, I don't think it was a good decision to remove the Armeniapedia.org article. It is, after all, the only wiki devoted to Armenian-related content. Just because one cannot find a news paper or book mentioning the site doesn't mean that it's not significant. Serouj (talk) 07:47, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * According to the GNG that's exactly what we are supposed to use to determine notability and that's the accepted inclusion standard for wikipedia. If you find some books or papers or journals discussing the place then by all means we can revisit this but we are not the primary publisher of information so if noone else has carried it neither should we. Spartaz Humbug! 08:01, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Please note, that Armeniapedia is a really valuable source of information for any person who particularly decides to travel remote sites in Armenia. However, since Armeniapedia legally presents copyrighted materials (such as from "Rediscovering Armenia Guidebook") one would most likely cite the original publication rather than the site placing its contents online. Hence, obviously the site should be expected to lack references, however still being useful and notable.
 * Please let me know what further info you would need that would convince you of importance of Armeniapedia and its restoration in Wikipedia.
 * Thanks in advance. --  Ashot  ( talk ) 17:03, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Ashot, Spartaz is correct. All articles must adhere to the very same standards of notability per Wikipedia's guidelines.  No exceptions.  The best would be to get a newspaper article published about the site :). Serouj (talk) 21:17, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure. --  Ashot  ( talk ) 21:36, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John McFarland (ice hockey)
I request that you take a second look at Articles for deletion/John McFarland (ice hockey). The AfD result was seven editors arguing to keep the article, and only two for delete (three if counting the nom). It appears that you chose to blindly follow the argument of the nominating editor when you stated in your closing reasons that it was “clear the player doesn;t [sic] pass HOCKEY [sic]”, however this point is not at all clear and criteria #4 of WP:NHOCKEY was the point of substantial discussion. You then went on to say the the numerous sources presented to qualify the article under WP:GNG had also been “clearly refuted”. Here again it appears that you followed only the argument of the nominating editor who gave a superficial, inaccurate and self-serving analysis of the sources. The majority of the other editors felt that the sources provided to support the article demonstrated that the player did pass GNG. This AfD's consensus was for keep, not delete. Dolovis (talk) 04:25, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you are really personalising this far too much. Just stand back and look at the sources and see how many actually count as reliable secondary sources. Once you have done that come back and let me know what ones you think are the best and we can discuss them. But, to be clear, I'm pretty strict that I close against policy so if the sources appear deficient then the article is going to fail the GNG. NHOCKEY and the like are supposed to be indicators that sources should be there, but, at the end of the day, no sources = no article. I'm happy to review sources for you but I think you need to be a bit more discriminating and maybe try and look at things in a less passionate way. Spartaz Humbug! 08:06, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * If it is your goal to debate and influence the outcome of the AfD, then you should have jumped into the discussion. Just follow the the consensus, then you will have done your job as the closing editor. Dolovis (talk) 15:41, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I think maybe you need to understand that consesus is not about numbers but by weight of arguements. He made the close based on what he felt consensus was. -DJSasso (talk) 16:10, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I simply think that the closer interpreted the debate incorrectly and I am asking him to review his decision. Dolovis (talk) 20:34, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The closer's claims in the closing statement that the keep !votes did not refer to policy is blatantly counterfactual.—David Eppstein (talk) 03:19, 31 December 2010 (UTC)


 * This is resolved a couple of sections below. Spartaz Humbug! 04:32, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Do restaurant reviews count as "significant coverage" of the reviewed restaurants?
FYI, I started a thread on this question at the Notability guidelines. --Lambiam 08:37, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for that, I really wasn't comfortable ruling on this as we need community consensus on the way to handle these. Spartaz Humbug! 09:50, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Concerning your deletion of John McFarland (ice hockey) please look at these two sources
Articles_for_deletion/John_McFarland_(ice_hockey)


 * The Hockey News is a reliable site that gave detailed coverage of this person at . I mentioned it in the AFD.
 * A staff writer at NHL also did a full page article on him.

There are many Google news results to sort through, but I believe those two count as significant coverage, and thus the article should be undeleted.  D r e a m Focus  09:46, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The first one looks OK to my inexperienced eye but I don't know if the second counts as independant coverage. I'm going to ask DJSasso for comments as they analyised the sources in the AFD. If there isn't agreement on the sources I'mn going to refer to RS/N for more expert opinions as I can foresee a valid divergence of opinion and independant eyes will keep everything reasonable and colleagiate. Spartaz Humbug! 10:06, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The first was a blog as you can see at the top of the page. It does not state that its part of the Hockey News's editorial process so I take it to be an opinion piece which can't be used to establish notability. (but that is just my opinion). As for the second one, its written by the NHL so I tend to err on the side of caution as most stuff on nhl.com is not independant. These are just my opinions I am more than will to accept I am wrong, but they are how I interpret notability guidelines and reliable source guidelines. -DJSasso (talk) 13:04, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * A blog of a professional writer who works for a legitimate news source. This isn't a blog so much as an "editorial" or "opinion" piece, which all newspapers have, but still counts as a reliable source.  As for as the second, the person does not work for the NHL, nor do they give that sort of coverage to every single player there is.  The hockey experts found him notable enough to do a full write up on.   D r e a m Focus  23:04, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Dream Focus is correct. You needs only to refer to WP:NEWSBLOG and WP:SIGCOV which states that “Newspaper and magazine blogs are acceptable as sources” and “significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material”. The sources cited in the article, and presented in the AfD, are more than enough to support the article under WP:GNG. Dolovis (talk) 23:15, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the blog is OK, I am a little concerned that the NHL source isn't independent but having slept on it overnight I think the sourcing is definitely better then I took from reading the discussion and my close is no longer viable. I'm going to reclose as no-consensus. Spartaz Humbug! 04:23, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Rich Iott
Just wondering why you felt relisting was appropriate? I looked over the criteria for relisting vs. closing without consensus and I can't figure out why you made that choice.

"... if at the end of the initial seven-day period, the discussion has only a few participants (including the nominator), and/or it seems to be lacking arguments based on policy, it may be appropriate for the closer to relist it, to solicit further discussion to determine consensus. A relisted discussion may be closed once consensus is determined without necessarily waiting a further seven days.

That said, relisting should not be a substitute for a "no consensus" closure. If the closer feels there has been substantive debate, disparate opinions supported by policy have been expressed, and consensus has not been achieved, a no-consensus close may be preferable."

- WP:RELIST

There were 9 participants, 4 deletes including the nominator, 5 keeps, more than 800 words of discussion. The only argument made by deletes seem to be an assertion of 1E - the keeps had more to say regarding policy - but regardless of weight, there was discussion and participation. -Regards-KeptSouth (talk) 12:57, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't see a clear consensus and sometimes having an extra week allows stuff to fall into place. Spartaz Humbug! 14:02, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your response. I guess to you it seemed that relisting was a substitute for a no consensus closure, but we all have different ways of interpreting the rules and guidelines.
 * I would also like to add that I had great difficulty creating the article, which I thought very odd given the extensive national coverage at the time, and the fact that all the national candidates that I could think of that had significant media coverage, had their own articles. As I recall, it was quickly deleted, merged to the election article, renamed with the incorrect name three times, with discussion consisting mainly of partisan bickering over whether the article should exist... but I am not sure of the details as most of that history disappeared. Perhaps the extra week will give these users a chance to chime in again.-Regards-KeptSouth (talk) 15:17, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

A note on Articles for deletion/Tropical Storm Norma (2005)
Just so you know, those articles you suggested exist: 2005 Atlantic hurricane season, and List of storms in the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season. Much verbiage has been wasted on whether storms like this deserve articles in WT:WPTC, in case you're interested. Tito xd (?!? - cool stuff) 07:57, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll be honest, its not a subject close to my interests... Spartaz Humbug! 09:49, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Ron Cooper (bicycle framebuilder)
Could you please kindly explain why you did not close as 'no consensus'? Thanks, <strong style=" font-size: 0.9em;letter-spacing: 0.1em">Racconish <strong style="font-size: 0.9em;letter-spacing: 0.1em" > Tk 11:21, 31 December 2010 (UTC) 1. http://www.boston.com/news/globe/living/articles/2006/07/10/frame_jobs/ doesn't mention Ron Cooper 2. is good enough to count as a source 3. is a private website, isn't peer reviewed or fact checked and has no chance of meeting RS. 4. is an interview which is a primary source related to source 2. This therefore fails on two grounds, its not secondary and its not separate to the second one really. According to the GNG there need to be multiple sources. So far we have one. If you find another, per my standard practise, I will undelete the article on the spot. Spartaz Humbug! 13:33, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The argument that the article lacked significant sources appeared to be valid. Therefore the article failed to pass the notability standard which require sources to be secondary, independent, reliable and significant i.e. substantial coverage. I have now reviewed the sources in the deleted article:


 * Thanks for the quick answer.
 * The Boston Globe actually does mention Cooper as a "master builder". I have elaborated on the significance of this mention in the AFD.
 * I am not sure what your numbers refer to, but The bike show and Rouleur are two different sources.
 * Other sources are quoted here (specifically: Bicycle Guide (twice),
 * Cyclist Magazine and
 * Connecticut Sports). Also:
 * Competitive cyclist, November 1979,
 * Cycling Magazine, October 31, 1964,
 * Cycling Magazine, November 7, 1970,
 * February 1976 issue of Bicycling!
 * and August 1980 issue of Bicycling!.
 * Cheers, <strong style=" font-size: 0.9em;letter-spacing: 0.1em">Racconish <strong style="font-size: 0.9em;letter-spacing: 0.1em" > Tk 14:30, 31 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Looking forward to your answer, with best wishes for a happy new year. RacconishTk 18:23, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Please advise. Thanks, RacconishTk 07:18, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


 * sorry I have been away and I'm sick. I'll try and get to it soon. Spartaz Humbug! 09:20, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


 * No problem. Take care, RacconishTk 09:38, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you think it might make more sense to have an article about the frames rather then the subject as they seem mostly notable for building frames? Otherwise, I'm torn between restoring and relisting. Spartaz Humbug! 09:54, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Welcome back. I am a rescuer, not a frame specialist. Based on sources provided and lack of consensus, I think you should restore. I take the commitment to add the sources above inline. If after that somebody is still unhappy, he can bring it back to Afd. Cheers, RacconishTk 10:03, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * OK. Spartaz Humbug! 10:06, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Its done, I would strongly advise you make the original source of references clear since they are linked on a 3rd party site. Spartaz Humbug! 10:11, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I put a 'no consensus' oldafd template on the article's talk page. RacconishTk 10:13, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Deletion review for IPad 2
An editor has asked for a deletion review of IPad 2. 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. <font color="#21421E" face="font-family: 'Maiandra GD', sans-serif;">Marcus <font color="#CC7722" face="font-family: 'Maiandra GD', sans-serif;">Qwertyus   07:50, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Drv#Master_Navigator_Software
An editor has started Drv. Just a polite heads up. Reyk <sub style="color:blue;">YO!  03:36, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Zone Fighter continuity debate deleted.
Hi - I had originally asked a question here, but have since found the answer,hence this edit. Please disregard. Sorry. Thank you. Abbythecat (talk) 21:52, 4 January 2011 (UTC) Abbythecat Abbythecat (talk) 21:52, 4 January 2011 (UTC).Abbythecat (talk) 06:17, 5 January 2011 (UTC)AbbythecatAbbythecat (talk) 06:17, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Minako Hamano
Please email me a copy of the article on Minako Hamano deleted in December. Thank you. Pkeets (talk) 21:01, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Done Spartaz Humbug! 10:06, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Pkeets (talk) 14:01, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Nick Chaldakov - photographer
Nick Chaldakov: Thank you :) I love you :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.190.193.73 (talk) 16:32, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Your AfD close @ Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thyrosafe

 * I do not feel that your close of the Thyrosafe AfD was proper, considering the arguments used in the discussion. While Wnt never bolded a Keep decision in his comment, it's quite clear that that's the side he is on and his argument was extremely valid. JFW's argument just confused the fact that a product is not the same thing as what is in the product, so it's a null argument. Aaron Brenneman pointed out background information related to the discussion and put forth that any merge discussion should be on the talk page, as AfD is not the proper place to have such a discussion. Mangoe just said that such things as the subject of the article are "generally not notable in themselves". I responded to this with an explanation, but they never replied in turn. I put forth an explanation for why the article was notable and should be kept. Beagel just said "per Mangoe". So how is there a consensus to merge in this AfD, per the arguments given? Silver  seren C 03:57, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has moved on in the 2 something years that Aaron has been away. Historically AFDs never merged or redirected as they were editorial discussions not requring admin intervention. AFD has moved on and the consensus is that Merge and redirect are valid outcomes but this is still a recommendation - see WP:ND3 for the background in this kind of close. What I saw from the discussion is that the article was about the wikileaks stuff and no-one refuted the nom's argument towards the end in response to you that there were no secondary sources about Thyrosafe and that the sources that actually discussed it in detail were all primary. Under the GNG that means the stuff isn't notable enough for a standalone article but its obvious that there is something to record so a redirect - as mandated by many of the particiapnts - is an excellent compromise between keeping something against the GNG and deleting it. I'm sorry you don't like the outcome but I'm pretty clear when I close AFDs that sourcing is absolutely crucial and I'm always going to apply the GNG/noptability criteria to any AFD discussion to find the consensus if the issue is notability. That's what admins are supposed to do, find a rough consensus against policy not headcount. For me the crucial argument was the sourcing. Once no-one challenged the assertion that no secondary sources had been found then, under policy, this couldn't stand on its own and had to be merged or deleted. I chose the least distructive option of the two. Spartaz Humbug! 08:19, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * There were two sentences in the article about the Wikileaks thing and only one source attributed to it. The rest of the article and sources were about the use of Thyrosafe at other events in earlier years in towns that were near nuclear power plants. There were at least five reliable secondary sources in the article, including at least one reference about the nature of thyrosafe that was reliable and was not primary. The reason I never replied was because I kind of got caught up in other events on WP and the discussion slipped off my watchlist, since there were no other respondents. Silver  seren C 08:28, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, Wnt and I explained why the nominator's reasoning was not valid. The secondary sources were already in use in the article. And I explained above why none of the merge voters in the discussion actually used any reasoning whatsoever in their votes. Silver  seren C 08:30, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll have another look at this. As a closer I'm supposed to close by the discussion rather then my own opinion. I can't really start reviewing sources at the time of the close without ending up with a personal opinion that makes me more of participant then a neutral closer, but once its closed I'm always happy to revisit and review. I'm up to my eyes now so I'll have to do it this evening of that's OK. Spartaz Humbug! 10:14, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Undent since I can't fit my reply in the right place... I do wish people would quit slagging me off as having "been away." I started to open discussion on "merge" closes since I suspected this one would be disputed. But that doesn't at all mean that I just fell off the turnip truck...
 * 1) Non-deleting deletion discussions is an essay. The talk page hasn't had much action since 2009, and it has been labelled "Low-impact."
 * 2) Articles for deletion is still "Articles for deletion," regardless of any Dec 2009 discussion to change it.
 * 3) From the blue info-box at the top of that page: "For a potentially controversial merger, consider listing it at proposed mergers."
 * 4) I don't see any consensus that it's appropriate to take merges to AFD, as Proposed mergers and Merging_and_moving_pages still exist, and have ongoing and active use.

By the way, I'm sounding a bit like I'm having a go at Spartaz, but I'm not. Well, a little bit for implying that I'm somehow wrong in this, but *shrug* I should just grow a skin... However, the person who brought this to AFD was totally out of line in doing so, and had refused to take part in talk page discussions. It was a bad nomination. This is unequivocal. 

Spartaz' close was (in the absence of a speedy keep) the appropriate decision, and there is clear consensus that the page should be merged.

Aaron Brenneman (talk) 11:58, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Are you still going to review this? Silver  seren C 08:26, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * When I have a sec yes, but its new years eve, a day off, the family calling on me for rides, got to take my parents to the airport, read books to my daughter. That kind of thing. Spartaz Humbug! 10:26, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, just wondering, since you've responded to all the other discussions besides this. ^_^; Silver  seren C 18:43, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I have been away and have also been sick. I have now looked at this again. I really don't see that I could have legitimately closed this any other way but, per WP:ND3 merge is not an administrative action so you are still welcome to explore a more developed consensus on the article talk pages if you think this outcome was incorrect. Spartaz Humbug! 10:05, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Fandom wank
I'm not going to take it to WP:DRV, but I just want it noted for the record that I think you made the wrong decision on Articles for deletion/Fandom Wank (3rd nomination). Vote-counting gives the result you ended up with, but AfD is not a vote, and there is very little in the delete !votes that can be taken as a policy-based argument. It looks to me that a more accurate outcome would have been no consensus (or a relist to attempt to get something closer to a consensus). And although several comments suggested salting, I don't see any rationale for that at all. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:10, 30 December 2010 (UTC) Ok, see WP:RS/N. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:05, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I can't follow that at all David. N/GNG/WEB are guidelines and the deletion arguments were mostly based around notability and a lack of sources to demonstrate this. That is exactly a policy based argument. Its a compelling argument and if no-one can provide the sources to refute the argument then under policy its the winning argument. Spartaz Humbug! 08:21, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * There was one delete vote that was a pure IDONTLIKEIT and all the rest made no argument that fit what WP:WEB and WP:GNG actually say. They didn't argue about whether the sources were multiple or reliable, or whether the sources were nontrivial, they only argued that they were published in obscure places, a criterion that is nowhere to be found in policy. One of the deletes outright admitted that his interpretation of what "trivial" means had nothing to do with policy. Basically, this decision leaves me completely at a loss: I am unable to understand from it what WP:WEB really means. Because if it meant "you have to have an article in a major newspaper; academic publications don't count" then it would say so, but that's the only conclusion I can draw from the deletes. Which is why I would have preferred for it to remain open for a few more voters who would actually explain how they thought they were following policy. I'll save the argument about how neutral you appear to be in your interpretation of consensus on AfDs for another day, because I'd prefer to get an explanation that makes sense for this one AfD. I didn't get one from the !voters, so it's you that's on the hook for it. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:43, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Apart from the academic papers that only you really seemed to accept as RSs are there any more that weren't discussed in the AFD? Somehow I don't think you will accept the outcome - whatever explanation I give. I'm not going to apologise for relying on notability as the determining policy and sources as a measurement of whether there was a consensus to delete. The delete side broadly argued this was non notable because the sources were inadequate. You dispute that but were unable to bring anyone round to accepting your sources. It therefore got deleted. That's how AFD works. When I rely on the level of sourcing to close discussions I'm following something that is quantifiable and policy based. I can see your view varies. Spartaz Humbug! 10:21, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * There were two keep votes, not just mine; the other one also accepted the academic sources. But if you are going to tell me that academic publications aren't reliable sources, you're opening a huge can of worms, because WP:RS, bullet 2, is very clear that they are reliable. And academic sources are used all the time for more technical subjects such as mathematics. Basically, as I see it, the delete votes boil down to "these aren't prominent enough sources to convince me that the subject is well known", a very common argument to see in an AfD. But it's a type of argument that, if you dig into it, has no basis in policy. As the closing admin, you are required to evaluate how well the arguments follow policy, not just count votes. And in this case you appear to have done a poor job even of the counting part since you seem to think I was the only keep. So tell me, again, specifically, what part of WP:WEB #1 does the deleted article not fulfil, according to the consensus you found? —David Eppstein (talk) 16:13, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll tell you what david, since the issue is the RSs. Why don't you run them past the good folks at RS/N and we can let them adjudicate if the sources are good enough to pass N? Spartaz Humbug! 04:41, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * RS/N is the wrong forum for second-guessing of closed AfDs. As you should surely know. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:43, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Your choice. Spartaz Humbug! 10:24, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * To be clear: are you hinting that you believe the sources to be unreliable, but that "per your standard practice" if these sources are determined to be reliable you will undelete the article? Or otherwise, what is the point of sending me to RS/N? —David Eppstein (talk) 19:27, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Its both really. I'm not really impressed with the sources but I know I'm a bit puritan about sourcing so I'm happy to go with standard practise if RSN thinks they are worthwhile. Spartaz Humbug! 18:40, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmm, This didn't really come out very helpfully either way did it? Spartaz Humbug! 09:48, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Farhad Hakimzadeh
Thanks for closing this. I wanted to let you know that I intend to challenge your close as I do not think you correctly judged consensus. Cheers. --John (talk) 03:54, 8 January 2011 (UTC) Thank you, the expanded rationale makes your process more understandable. I will now consider my options, and I appreciate your prompt attention. --John (talk) 04:56, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * When you list it do make it clear that you declined to discuss the close with the deleting admin. Spartaz Humbug! 03:59, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh? Where did I do that, exactly? --John (talk) 04:03, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * um threatening to challenge the close (i.e. taking me to DRV) without seeking any dialog isn't a discussion under any dictionary definition of the term. Spartaz Humbug! 04:13, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Very well. Per WP:ADMIN, I am requesting that you explain the admin action you took. You are obliged to do so. By asking you about the matter here prior to listing the action at WP:DRV, I am behaving properly. If you wish to decline to discuss this, you must do so yourself, not pretend that I have done so. Your call. --John (talk) 04:16, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * John I'm not being passive aggressive I'm responding to your initial comment that was essentially a threat - at least as far as I read it. If you wanted to understand my close you could have asked me to explain it further not just tell me that you are challenging it. Maybe we are using the English language in a different way to say the same things differently but I honestly don't parse any question if your initial post but I do see a threat to take me to DRV. I'm more then happy to explain the close further. Give me a sec and I'll put something more detailed on the AFD. Spartaz Humbug! 04:20, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I take your point and I am sorry I didn't express myself more clearly the first time. Please take your time and see if you can add something at the AfD. I appreciate your trouble. --John (talk) 04:23, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I have expanded the rationale and made specific reference to the policies that guided the close and shown how I applied them. If you still think I closed against consensus you are welcome to discuss this further. Spartaz Humbug! 04:49, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Harpies in popular culture
Hi, you recently redirected this page.

This creates a loop, since the section on the main Harpies page contains a link back to Harpies in popular culture.

Please either rollback your redirection or fix the loop. Please don't do just half a job. Thanks. CapnZapp (talk) 09:50, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I closed an AFD - the redirect was a result of that. There are bots that fix this kind of thing or, since you noticed it you could have fixed it yourself but thank you for telling me. Spartaz Humbug! 15:50, 8 January 2011 (UTC)