User talk:Spartaz/Archive8

Civility
Removal of a personal attack is allowed when the attack is not against the person removing the comment. And using strikethrough instead of complete removal allowed people to still read what you wrote.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:54, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Its not a personal attack to call a snide and whiney complaint a snide and whiney complaint. More to the point don't you think it would have been better to discuss it with me or ask me to adjust the comment myself? Spartaz Humbug! 19:58, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it would have been better for me to speak with you about it first, but usually I find that people who make personal attacks are not very pleasant to deal with. And maybe it would have been better for you to discuss your removal of the strikethrough before you removed the strikethrough.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well I'm generally receptive to feedback - can't speak about anyone else and I didn't see any reason to leave the strikethrough since it hadn't been discussed with me. Tell you what, I'll remove it entirely as a guesture of good faith. Spartaz Humbug! 20:30, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks. Much appreciated.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:34, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Merges and Redirects after Deletion Discussions
Hi. I saw your link to your new essay WP:Merges and Redirects after Deletion Discussions. I skimmed it and broadly agree. Having read and participated in the Chris Parmelee DRV, I agree that relevant guidance should be written somewhere. WP:AfD and mergers hints at the strength of the closer's statement and could/should be expanded, but a separate essay could be more comprehensive. Flatscan (talk) 03:53, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi again. I disagree with your early close of WP:Deletion review/Log/2009 July 23. Since it is relevant to WT:Deletion review, I left a more detailed comment there. Flatscan (talk) 04:09, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reconsideration and quick response. Flatscan (talk) 03:08, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

ANI
Nice to know that editors can falsely accuse other editors and administrators of serious misconduct and suffer no consequences. Do you really think the project is served by allowing editors to hurl indiscriminate charges of "disruption" and "abuse" that are utterly without foundation? Good looking out, buddy. Maybe you should have left the issue open for more than ten hours.Otto4711 (talk) 06:29, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You asked to have it looked at and several admins did and said there was no actionable conduct. case closed and I'd advise you to take a less aggressive tone in future if you actually want people to take you seriously. Spartaz Humbug! 06:31, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Would the process have been damaged if it was left open long enough for the sun to shine on every time zone of the globe? So sorry if you find my tone "aggressive". I get disappointed when bad-faith acts are given a free pass. Otto4711 (talk) 06:40, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * well you are doing a good job assuming bad faith on my part so I'm not sure exactly how you want me to respond to that. You forget to mention to me that you raised the close on Talk ANI while we were still discussing it. nice work. Oh, and I have no objection to someone uninvolved reversing the archiving but I cant really see this going anywhere except to generate drama. Spartaz Humbug! 06:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not assuming bad faith on your part. I am stating flat out that you made a mistake. Otto4711 (talk) 06:45, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * And throwing lots of irrelevant nonsense around to obfuscate the plot too. You complain that im barely active but I'm still herre to discuss your issue with you so what's the relevance of that? Spartaz Humbug! 06:48, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Noting bad-faith accusations that administrators are engaged in a conspiracy to impose an agenda on the project is obfuscation? Noting bad-faith accusations of abuse and disruption is obfuscation? Suggesting that an editor should be advised that making bad-faith accusations is a breach of civility and AGF is obfuscation? Otto4711 (talk) 06:51, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Sigh. I guess we are done here. Spartaz Humbug! 06:54, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Arindamp
Hi :) Nice to see you're still around. I have taken the liberty to undo your decline, for after checking the CU logs I don't think the block was CU-based. I feel the user is right: the SPI was not related to him directly. -- Luk  talk 13:38, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Re:
Spartaz, please remove or strike this comment from the Workshop page. The Workshop is intended for the proposal and discussion of elements to the remedy of the case, not for unfounded speculation as to the motives of parties or other users. Such comments are inflammatory and not conducive to determining a solution to an issue that is clearly very contentious to begin with. Thank you. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 21:34, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * there. Happy? If not feel free to redact it further yourself I'm going to bed . Spartaz Humbug! 21:46, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

about my evidence
I have finished it. I got it down to 1088 words (according to OppenOffice word count), which is still over the 1000 words limit, but clerks might decide not to touch it anyways (I notice that Abd's evidence goes to 1409 words using the same tool, and that he is cheating by linking to diffs with more evidence, lol). The tool used by clerks may give a different count, I recall a clerk explaining how he counted but I didn't think of bookmarking his explanation, such a pity.

If you put some of the sections under your name then make sure to read it first and check that you completely endorse what it says, since it will be under your own name.

Btw, I think that I found that diff you were looking for, I posted in my talk page. I have to say that reading so many long posts written by Abd almost felt like a punishment :-P My workmate asks me often to read aloud comment made by Abd and others so he can marvel at what outrageous stuff people posts in wikipedia..... --Enric Naval (talk) 08:37, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Never mind, I have been told by Ryan in the workshop's talk page that I can move the evidence to subpages in my userspace if it gets too big, and that arbs will read it, so I'm going to try that path for now. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:35, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Your comment on my proposals
If you think that my having previously used another name has any relevance to my proposals perhaps you would care to explain it on the appropriate talk page (mine for example). Otherwise please explain to the ArbComm why you are trying to intimidate one of the contributors while you are acting for one of the others. Arkady Renkov (talk) 11:09, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Its obvious that you have edited under a different name and we need to know if you are really a banned user. There is already a prohibition preventing established users from editing policy pages under alternative accounts. All I did was raise the issue and ask someone to look into it so I'd suggest you either use your main account or disclose your previous identity. Your contributions scream matured sock.... Spartaz Humbug! 11:12, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Your comment at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William_M._Connolley/Workshop
Thanks for the display of good faith. For what it's worth I'm not a sockpuppet, but feel free to go open an SPI. TotientDragooned (talk) 07:09, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Nah, the clerks can handle it I'm sure. There are enough CUs who frequent the case. Clearly you are not a new user and this isn't your first account and thanks for your own bad faith in mentioning me too. That was much appreciated. I do have to say you are a much nicer sockpuppet then the last one though. Spartaz Humbug! 08:44, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Cabals
Re: your denials: Well, you wouldn't be quick to admit your cabal membership, would you? You're just trying to hide its very existence as always, but there are those who know the truth! While we're on the subject, can I please join? Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:17, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You are just tryng to trick em into giving the game away, :-D Spartaz Humbug! 04:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Notice to all users involved in Abd/WMC
This is a general notice to all users involved in the Abd/WMC arbitration case that further disruptive conduct within the case will not be tolerated and will result in blocks being issued by Clerks or Arbitrators as needed. More information is available at the announcement here; please be sure to read that post in full. Receipt of this message does not necessarily imply that you are at risk of a block or have been acting in a disruptive manner; it is a general notice to all that the Clerks and ArbCom are aware of issues in the case and will not be tolerating them any longer. If you have any questions, please post them to the linked section. Thank you. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 23:55, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Wokai
Hi Spartaz. Just created a draft at User:Euwyn/Sandbox. Would be able to help me with the next steps? Am fairly new to Wikipedia'ing, so apologies if I sound clueless. —Preceding undated comment added 20:15, 23 July 2009 (UTC). No, tahst OK, just get the sources off the wokai media page and rewrite the article including the data from them and add the references into the text. Once you have done that I'll have a closer look for you. Good luck. Spartaz Humbug! 06:06, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Spartaz! Rewrote the page to add statistics and reference, you can find it at User:Euwyn/Sandbox. Let me know the next steps or how else I can help. --Euwyn (talk) 21:17, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Spartaz, wanted to check in about the status of the Wokai page. Please let me know if there's anything I can help with in getting this article up.  I believe edits have been locked on the page.Euwyn (talk) 18:00, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Spartaz, still working on getting this page back up. I created an article on talk.  Let me know fi you can help! Euwyn (talk) 20:50, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Since you are generally open to feedback
Since you are generally open to feedback, you might want to reflect upon this statement. While I can understand your frustration and puerile need to lash out at Abd, it seems apparent that you meant that as a slur. If that is indeed the case then be aware that you are unfairly and insensitively denigrating not only Abd with that comment but everyone who suffers from ADHD or autism as well. If that is not the case then I apologize for the misunderstanding and would suggest that you try to be more clear in the future.

Also, I am by no means an expert here, but my five minutes of research seems to suggest that you are incorrect about ADHD even being on the Autism spectrum. How did you come to have that particular impression, if I might ask? --GoRight (talk) 02:40, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, Ok, I fixed the comment. Thank you for asking me to revisit it. My general point stands. I have close family members with aspergers and there is a fine line between not being able to do something and choosing not to. Abd simply chooses not to for his own convenience but that shows disregard to the convenience of others. That's a selfish choice in my book. Spartaz Humbug! 05:56, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Quick question
Could you explain why the article for Taylor Guitars was deleted? Next to Martin and Gibson, Taylor is probably the most well known acoustic guitar company in the World right now. Most musical instrument company pages are borderline adverts. Why was Taylor singled out when there are a hundred barely known instrument manufacturer pages still on Wikipedia? If Taylor is to be deleted then Wikipedia may as well delete Fender, Gibson, Martin, Guild and Gretsch guitar pages or Ludwig or Tama drum pages or Baldwin and Steinway piano pages. Singling out a prominent company like Taylor just seems odd when all the rest remain. Thanks Aussie Ausborn (talk) 18:35, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm, well the article I looked at was lacking sources and looked pretty promotional. Is it really that notable? Spartaz Humbug! 18:44, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * They are the current Cadillac of guitar makers... even giving Martin a good run for top of the heap. I can't recall ever reading the Wiki article.. perhaps it could use a good cleanup. I could post to the WikiProject Guitarists for assistance. Aussie Ausborn (talk) 18:56, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Might be a good idea, its not well referenced but truthfully, this looks like a really rubbish decision by me so I have undone everything and put it back the way it was before I touched it. Thanks for bringing this to my attention so quickly. Spartaz Humbug! 18:58, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Suminter India Organics premature deletion
Hi Spartaz,

I found that tonight you deleted Suminter India Organics. My understanding of the debate in Articles_for_deletion/Suminter_India_Organics was that there was by no means a WP:CON reached on the issue. In fact, SpacemanSpiff acknowledged one of the additional sources as reliable and discounted others. It is completely unclear to me why, after this acknowledgement, the article suddenly got deleted. ChristophD81 (talk) 06:08, 30 July 2009 (UTC) Spartaz, additionally, could you please restore the article to my sandbox so I can at least continue editing it and making it a better article? I put a lot of time into it and wouldn't want that to be wasted. Thanks.ChristophD81 (talk) 06:50, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Measuring consensus means more then a headcount but also comparing the arguments against the relevant guidelines and polices. In this case verifiability and Notability, not forgetting the specialist guidelines for companies. General notability and verifability requires multiple non-trivial reporting on a company before it meets the inclusion criteria and the users commenting on that aspect generally found that the article did not meet this threshold. The discussion included a detailed analysis of why the sources provided did not meet the criteria for reliability. Spartaz Humbug! 06:14, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree. SpacemanSpiff and Dori acknowledged that:
 * this show one non-trivial piece
 * The Dare piece is fine, too.
 * Additionally, one of the links they said they couldn't access is, a flash version of a print magazine, beyond profit. Here's the pdf version. In that article on p. 22-23, Linda Rottenberg talks in one paragraph about why Endeavor selected Suminter and what is so noteworthy about the company's model. Here's an article article (not a PR) about the Endeavor selection in Live Mint. ChristophD81 (talk) 06:43, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * UNCTAD lists Suminter as just one of five organic spice exporters from India. ChristophD81 (talk) 06:47, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * What I'm having trouble understanding is where the threshold is -- is it two articles? Three? Four? Or is it just what two people think (SpacemanSpiff, Dori) vs. what I think about Suminter? ChristophD81 (talk) 06:21, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * sure, one userfication coming up. The sources can always be reviewed after the event (in fact look at the long response under this section as I cover most of the ground there) and I don't mind voiding the article and restoring it if the content criteria get met. In terms of the threshold we consider 2 to be multiple but it obviously depends on the context. Two really good sources discussing the subject in detail will always work, sometimes one good sources and a couple marginal ones work, other times a lot of tangential sourcing will never have the effect. What we don't accept are self generated sources so company profiles on websites, regurgitated press releases or self-published material can't be used to establish notability although they can be used to flesh out an article once notability has been established. We also don't accept passing mentions so it has to be something that talks about the subject in some detail - the depth of detail is one of those maddenly it depends answers but could be addressed by relisting at AFD. I want to assure you that I'm not aggressive about maintaining deletion once we get over the sourcing issue so I'll happily revisit this as and when you have something to look at. Spartaz Humbug! 08:48, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * By the way I don't personally think the reference from "beyond profit" meets the RS criteria. Its a passing mention in the context of a wider article and as its a promotional first edition I doubt it would be considered sufficiently independant or established for a RS even if there were more discussion of the company. Spartaz Humbug! 09:28, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Bosnian American Library of Chicago
Obviously I'm unhappy about your decision to delete and disagree with it, but clearly there were reasonable arguments on which that decision was based. So I'm not challenging your decision. But I hope that you and the administratorship will give some consideration to my concerns on the subject.

Globally the AfD process appears to be weighted in favour of securing deletion. When an article is incomplete it is often because editors are busy (whether they should have posted the incomplete article in the first place is another matter, but everything starts somewhere). Someone nominating an article for deletion is taking that action at their own chosen time. If you feel the proposal should be contested you don't have the luxury of choosing your own time.

This request for deletion was very rapidly instituted. I'm not clear why there isn't an initial time allowance in which new/ish articles that might qualify for deletion as they stand aren't given a degree of protection as long as they satisfy a test of not being clearly identifiable as self-interested or otherwise mis-motivated.

This article was created very recently, within the last couple of weeks. The original creator was absent for most of the debate (and was not in communication with me on the subject). I stepped in because of my interest in the subject and concern at the prospect of deletion, not because I was ready to consolidate the article. (I know it's quite irrelevant but I'm pretty annoyed at having had to put in the work that I've done under circumstances of such compulsion, as you may have guessed!)

Anyhow, to get to the point. I seriously believe that the Bosnian American Library is notable and in the longer term will satisfy the Wikipedia notability criteria. So what I would like to ask you is, what is the procedure for eventually reinstating/reviving/recreating a deleted article? And can I ask that some effort be put into creating a more positive environment than the existing one in which conscientious contributors find themselves without warning running up the down escalator. Opbeith (talk) 06:44, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sympathetic to your concerns and I know that our content criteria are confusing, contradictory and difficult to understand if you don't spend a lot of time dealing with deletion. The process isn't designed to be fair but to be as consistent as any system can be in the circumstances and we have lots of checks and balances to try and even out mistakes. I can, for example, void the close if you can show me that the premis of the deletion was flawed (e.g. produce some sources), I can userfy the article for you to work on if you want to work on it outside mainspace and I can restore it if the content criteria get met in the meantime. We do have deletion review but I can't see much point in that for you to be honest as I'm pretty liberal about restoring articles if sourcing can be sorted out and I'm happy to relist for further discussion if the new sources need looking at by a wider community so I'd suggest that I put a copy of the last version of the article into your user area for you to work on. Once you have something to look at I'll happily review the close for you. ?OK Spartaz Humbug! 08:39, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

That's actually a very helpful answer. I'm not sure what "userfy" means, but if you can do it so I can fiddle about with the article when life is a bit less pressured and eventually ask for you to consider "restoring" as and when it seems ready, I'd be grateful. It's very encouraging when you get a helpful reply, not just refutations. Thanks a lot. Opbeith (talk) 08:48, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your help. Hopefully it'll get there eventually.Opbeith (talk) 20:44, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Wokai
I notice that you speedied a deletion review on Wokai despite it having been deleted at AfD. The article itself looks pretty similar to me, albeit with a newspaper article and a few blog articles used as references. Can I ask of why you thought skipping the deletion review appropriate? (It was obviously suitable for review.) Ian ¹³ /t  12:46, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, I just saw the comments mostly in favour hidden behind a [show], do ignore this question. Ian ¹³  /t  12:49, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem, the review had already seen action from several DRV regulars to the outcome was pretty clear. Spartaz Humbug! 12:58, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Luke Heron
I would be grateful if you would reconsider the deletion of the article Luke Heron. I accept your conclusion but there were more than sufficient grounds for the article to be moved to my user space to be worked on as opposed to the finality of deletion. If you read the thread there was considerable support for helping me to develop the article. This is not about head count or consensus it is about notability and needing to develop it more fully. As you will have noticed I am interested in developing the entire area and I do not wish to fall at the first hurdle. I think a move to my userspace would be helpful to me and fairer. Obviously the article would not be relisted without your approval. (MyraSendak (talk) 17:05, 30 July 2009 (UTC))
 * I dont need to reconsider the close to give you a copy to work on in your user area. Coming right up. Spartaz Humbug! 17:09, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I am all for helping out a new user but you just put an article that has been deleted twice for real notability concerns back into a userspace. If the issue was needing to clean up the article more I would agree that this is appropriate but when the issue is notability I think the bar needs to be higher - what will be achieved that was not achieved in the original article. |►  ϋrбan яeneωaℓ  •  TALK  ◄| 19:12, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You know, wikipedia isn't supposed to be a battleground and giving an upset user a chance to work on something privately is hardly a crime and does strike me as kinda reasonable. I'm sure you have read the relevant guide but the stuff I userfied wasn't on the list of things you don't userfy. Spartaz Humbug! 19:18, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

(File:TBM DY2.jpg)
This file has an artical see Daddy Yankee Mundial.Pedro thy master (talk • contribs) 14:30, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm, not at the time I tagged it it wasn't I dont think we need that article as the albumn hasn't been relased yet but I'll let this go for the moment. Spartaz Humbug! 18:27, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Templates
Funny I thought templates were supposed to make things easier?

I often don't get them either.--Tznkai (talk) 19:52, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Its the funny formating with so many different levels of header. It confused the section edits when I tried to close it. I won't bother closing anything at AE again. Too embarressing :-{ Spartaz Humbug! 20:02, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review/Log/2009 July 29
I'm curious as to why you said this was never deleted at AfD&mdash;because it looks like it was. Did you just miss the AfD? ÷seresin 20:13, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Um, well actually Im not sure what I did. I had this down as a post AFD thing and even included that in the move log but when I checked the logs for the page there was no mention of it being deleted after an AFD, so I'm really not sure what happened here, the page move should have merged the logs? right? Anyway, obviously this should probably be relisted at AFD - would you agree or just go G4? Spartaz Humbug! 20:19, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think page moves merge logs. I'm not sure another AfD would be necessary, since nothing has really changed since the first one. The outcome, however, would probably be different. I don't really have an opinion either way, G4 or AfD. ÷seresin 20:29, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I think AFD personally because of the intervening time and the request at DRV, some discussion is required and we effectively have a draft to discuss. Spartaz Humbug! 20:39, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Huda MfD
He immediately recreated User talk:A.S.M.Kamrul Huda, MBBS User talk:A.S.M.Kamrul Huda MBBS, PhD (Japan). I tagged G4 CSD but you might want to follow up with a warning or block. Articles were recreated from IP user. Gigs (talk) 18:03, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 'Just nuked them again and semi-protected it to prevent recreation by an ip Spartaz Humbug! 07:17, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Deletions of lists of megafauna
I'm disturbed by the speed with which a decision was reached to delete 11 articles. I was completely unaware that such a discussion was taking place, and no doubt so were many others. The articles' flaws appear to have very simple fixes. Simply put, megafaunal species could be listed for various mass ranges (keeping the ranges high enough to limit the number of species to a practical level), and then the lists would be little different than the lists of mountains or cities which are ubiquitous. All the complaints about the definition of "megafauna" are about as relevant as similar complaints that could be made about the definitions of "mountain" or "city".

The term "megafauna" is so common in both scholarly and popular writing on zoology, and the subject is of such general interest, that I regard it as nearly inevitable that the lists will eventually be recreated in some form. However, before reopening the discussion, I'd like to know if the articles are archived somewhere so I can have a look at them. Or have they vanished into thin air? WolfmanSF (talk) 04:46, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The articles were listed from 26th to 30th July at AFD and were all correctly tagged advertising the discussion. The actual debate was well attended with significantly better input then most AFDs and the discussion was of a decent quality revolving around policy and how we should define magafauna. Although deleted, the content can be retrieved by any admininstrator and you can always ask fro a copy to work on in your area, teh deletion concerned the definition and how we define the term (or don't as the case seemed in the end). I'm not particularly bothered about the outcome of the debate, I just read what appeared to be the rough consensus and I can see that your proposal might address some of the concerns. Did you want the deleted text in your userspace to try and reorganise into a more definable set of lists? That would certainly help the material's chances of being restored to mainspace... Spartaz Humbug! 07:22, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I would appreciate it if you could restore the articles to my userspace. You can add the lists to the following pages:
 * User:WolfmanSF/List of megafauna, User:WolfmanSF/List of African megafauna, User:WolfmanSF/List of Arctic megafauna, User:WolfmanSF/List of Australian megafauna, User:WolfmanSF/List of Central and South American megafauna, User:WolfmanSF/List of Eurasian megafauna, User:WolfmanSF/List of island megafauna, User:WolfmanSF/List of marine megafauna, User:WolfmanSF/List of North American megafauna, User:WolfmanSF/List of prehistoric megafauna.
 * Thanks, WolfmanSF (talk) 18:10, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll do it later today. Spartaz Humbug! 01:56, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * All done. You will need to refer back to me once you are done so the AFD can be voided. If we can't agree yu can get run it past DRV but I'd suggest sorting out the classification beforehand :-) - as I said, I'm not invested either way here so, if we can save some content, I'd be delighted. Don't forget that when they go back to mainspace we need to do histiry restorations and possible redirects to preserve the history of the edits for licensing reasons. Good luck. Spartaz Humbug! 15:30, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't expect rapid progress here - this is going to be a big job, and I'm busy. Thanks again. WolfmanSF (talk) 18:16, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That's fine, just drop me a note when you have something to look at. Don't forget yu might be able to find a wikiproject that might be able to help you do the sorting once the basic premise has been arranged. Spartaz Humbug! 18:59, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Excusing me poking my oar back in, I still had you on my watchlist and this does touch on one my concerns as well. The speed with which the deletion process is completed can leave people who have a potentially significant contribution to make unaware of what has happened or struggling to catch up. Surely there could be a bit more latitude, it's not as if anything terrible will happen as a result of going a little more slowly. Opbeith (talk)
 * We recently extended AFDs from 5 days to 7 to address that but there has to be a limit somewhere and most debates peter out after 4 days anyway so the extension hasn't actually helped much. Spartaz Humbug! 01:56, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

If you've been aware of the problem and taken action, I can't ask for more than that. Thanks. Opbeith (talk) 10:19, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I've added you to the Official Cabal Membership List at RfAr.
Pursuant to your request at User talk:Abd/Cabal, and your service for the Cabal in Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William_M._Connolley, as well as the prior evidence of merit as now documented on the Cabal evidence page, I have added you to the top-level list. People have been complaining about lack of notice, so... here it is! However, I have seen no instance of your risking your admin bit by using your tools in service of the Cabal, so I'm unlikely to propose that you receive the Special Award of Merit for Bravery, as I will be for WMC, Raul654, and maybe another. If you believe you deserve that award, please provide diffs or log references, so you can be included. Recipients of the Award may be allowed to retire from our janitorial service, and will become lifetime Respected Wiki Warriors, whose advice in all matters will be eagerly sought. And I'm actually not joking about that. --Abd (talk) 19:34, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Lubdan
I sincerely request you reconsider this and all the other deletions you may have performed under the lead of CSD R3. I believe the person tagging these redirect creations of mine is misusing them heavily. I have mentioned Lubdan in particular many times. This is NOT a typo, therefore the edit summary you have written in the deletion is false. Lubdan is what is written on the page I directed to, it is the name given to the Leprechaun in the comics, and it is the only place 'Lubdan' appears on any article on Wikipedia. This is only the tip of the iceberg, dozens (hundreds now?) are being tagged incorrectly with CSD R3. I relate to the tendency to assume good faith but I request a review of these deletions with more skepticism applied to claims of their lack of notability: Lubdan is no typo, nor are the others! Tyciol (talk) 10:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I have no objection to your recreating any redirects I deleted this morning. Spartaz Humbug! 12:31, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Jacques Bailly
I saw that you closed the recent Spelling Bee winners AFD as delete. However, I really don't understand how Jacques Bailly could be deleted under BLP1E. He has been the primary subject of many newspaper articles for several years, both for winning the Bee, and also for his role as official pronouncer:, , , , , etc. (I brought this up at the AFD, but no one seemed to pay much attention to it, and since it seemed to me that the discussion was moving towards keep, I didn't press the issue.)

I realize that his article wasn't fully referenced, but as I recall, nothing in it was particularly controversial, and everything could have been sourced with a couple minutes of research. Would you consider restoring that one, at least? (I realize that the article exists as a redirect, but you got rid of the page history.) Zagalejo^^^ 07:02, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, seems a reasonable request - done. Good luck with fixing it. Spartaz Humbug! 07:08, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Everything that's currently in the article is cited. I'll try to expand it soon. Zagalejo^^^ 07:36, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

How does one...
...make an appeal to Arbcom? I see no information on any of the Arbcom pages about appealing.. only info about opening an actual Arbcom case, clarifications and amendments. Nothing about appeals. Please reply at the thread on my talk page. Thanks. - ALLST✰R ▼ echo wuz here  11:25, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Arbcom notice
You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Requests for arbitration and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
 * Requests for arbitration;
 * Arbitration guide.

Thanks, - ALLST✰R ▼ echo wuz here  12:29, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Sarah Jane Hamilton
Would you mind relooking at this because the article appears to have been deleted against consensus. Thanks. 86.164.58.117 (talk) 18:45, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed, the consensus was going towards keep. Plus, and no offense meant, if you are going to give a delete summary you could at least bother to spell check before you post, it does weaken your argument. Web Warlock (talk) 19:18, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok, I probably haven't given the sources enough weight when assessing the close. It would be helpful if you can just briefly confirm exactly how much detail there is about the subject in the book and articles (I wasnt opening them at work either) and whether she is discussed in detail or in passing as this is relevant to whether the sources are good enough. I'm leaning towards overturning to keep and/or relisting but this would be helpful in deciding the actual direction. Oh and Webwarlock, I'd agree that spelling and typos are important but being a bit rubbish on a keyboard in project space is hardly the end of the world. After all, I am dyslexic. And no offence taken. Spartaz Humbug! 22:43, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The X Factory book devotes a four-page section to her, and the Skinflicks book has a paragraph on her. I don't have access to the Pornstar book that also apparantly covers her. 86.164.58.117 (talk) 23:31, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you.´I have voided the AFD close and relisted it for further discussion of the sourcing. Please feel free to participate there and thank you for drawing my attention to the incorrect close. Spartaz Humbug! 06:25, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I will look for more sources. If I came off snarky then I do apologise. Web Warlock (talk) 12:36, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Deletions
The following debates were resolved as "delete" by you, but appear to have developed a consensus in the other direction (or at the very least, failed to achieve a clear consensus):


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sai_R._Gunturi
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_The_Rutles_fictional_albums
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Wall_ball
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Canbourne_University_%282nd_nomination%29
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sarah_Jane_Hamilton

I didn't want to go trolling too far back in your history, since I don't really need to become a wiki-stalker, but this trend seems worrisome. At some point the opinions of those contributing their time to the debate are being ignored, and that leads to less participation. -Miskaton (talk) 22:37, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You are aware that consensus is measured by measuring arguments against polices and guidelines rather then by strictly counting heads in the debate? Notability is asserted by producing sources not by assertion and I have a good record of my deletions standing up at DRV. If you have an issue I am more then happy to discuss the specifics of any close but just telling me I'm wrong is neither helpful nor providing a platform we can discuss the subject around. I wouldn't dispute that I'm slightly more deletionist then the average when closing discussions but, by the same token, there are lots of admins more inclusionist then the average when they close. At least I'm aware of it and try to allow for it when I close discussions. BLP1E is also a policy so it trumps the notability criteria since that is only a guideline and I make no apologies for giving it full value when assessing rough consensus. Spartaz Humbug! 22:51, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

JIDF again. Puppets, anons and single purpose vandals
Hi, Do you want to block ? This is a JIDF puppet whose id and contributions bear a remarkable ressemblance to those of who we have previously decided is Einsteindonut.

It's hard to tell whether is a JIDF account or run by an opponent, but it was clearly invented just to vandalise. (rain or raid on Gaza?) is another vandal account which is almost certainly run by an opponent.

Meanwhile what got me looking at the page again is an anon Irish-based POV-pusher whose contributions to the page were correctly undone by the new JIDF puppet. The accounts being used and  are making serious contributions to other articles, though some edits are typo-ridden. Given the time spread the serious edits are possibly involving different users and this makes it seem pretty pointless going to their talk page.--Peter cohen (talk) 17:19, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually I have now posted to 79...'s talk page as the most recently used account.--Peter cohen (talk) 12:53, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I blocked HappyGoLucky1212 as an obvious sock. The other two only edited once and that was a long time ago so I'm not sure we need to block them. The IPs can be dealt with by semi-protecting the page if the vandalism becomes a problem - otherwise revert warn and block will work as usual. cheers. Spartaz Humbug! 09:30, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I've just given the IP a 3RR warning. We'll have to see what happens.--Peter cohen (talk) 11:35, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Dispute
Thanks for letting me know that the Deletion review is only for articles that are already deleted. I wanted to know if an article is being disputed under notability criteria then which is the right place to put up this matter ? Nefirious (talk) 10:41, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Argue it out at the deletion discussion. You can't appeal against an article being nominated but it only gets deleted if there is apolicy based consensus to do so. Spartaz Humbug! 15:10, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Error?
Did you err in deleting an article. I fully understand the reasons for delete. However, there's a seldom referred to instructions that I found.

See WP:RCAT (one of the boxes, near the bottom 1/3 of the page) entitled "What do we use redirects for?" which lists "People known solely in the context of one event". So shouldn't a person known for one event become a redirect?

This information is more for future use and knowledge than the specific article you deleted. If you disagree with my interpretation, should we try to eliminate RCAT? User F203 (talk) 23:34, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You need to tell me what article you are talking about. Spartaz Humbug! 08:32, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I suspect it was Articles_for_deletion/Scott_Janke. BLP1E is a policy and trumps a Guideline, which is what RCAT is. RCAT isn't an inclusion criteria guideline anyway and is not useful for determining if a particular article should be deleted. I don't see that this bloke is notable enough to be a likely search terms for the municipality or that there will be useful information about them to add to the municipality article so I'm afraid that this simply isn't worth your time fighting. Spartaz Humbug! 14:38, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Martintg's 3RR report
Dear Spartaz, Martintg clearly made 4 reverts in 24 hours despite WP:3RR clearly saying that "'It states that a user who makes more than three revert actions (of any kind) on any one page within a 24 hour period, may be considered to be edit warring, and blocked appropriately, usually for a 24 hour period for a first incident.'" "'A 'page' is any page on Wikipedia, including talk and project space. A revert is any action, including administrative actions, that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part.'"

In other words, one does not have to revert to the same version – only undo what is done by others. Martintg clearly made 4 reverts in 24 hours, 4 reverts of someone else's additions. This is a routine of his: in fact, he was placed on a (vacated) 1RR restriction last month.

If you think this is not applicable in this case, please closely examine this: – I myself was blocked for 24 hours for reverting four times, while not reverting to the same version. PasswordUsername (talk) 07:25, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Firstly I didn't deal with your block so its not relevant to my action here but I don't necesserily agree with that interpretation of edit warring. Secondly, revert warring requires repetition of reverts in some form otherwise you can pass 4RR just editing normally working with another editor to find a suitable wording on a point. If there has been a restriction on Martintg its not relevant if it has expired. If you feel edit warring remains a problem you are welcome to file s request at RFAR to have the restriction reinstated but I strongly recommend you come up with a better case then this one. Spartaz Humbug! 08:06, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm still not getting it. Why is this not reverting? I ask not to delete synth tag with no consensus for doing it, Martintg reverts ; Anarchangel edits , Martintg reverts ; Russavia takes out , Martintg reverts ; I insert info based on added material of US support of Pol Pot as Cambodian representative at the United Nations , Martintg undoes this, adds his own take.
 * Doesn't this look like plain-old edit warring? Ownership? So – undoing edits by others four times in 24 hours or not? Perhaps I misunderstood again – please kindly fill me in. PasswordUsername (talk) 08:46, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Looks like a pretty clear 3RR violation to me. All of the mentioned 4 edits by Martintg are reverts, as demonstrated above, and all of them were done inside 24 hours. Offliner (talk) 10:31, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Both Offliner and PasswordUsername  seem to be rather unhappy at the result of a recent AfD I was extensively involved in, and seem to looking for punitive retribution by continuing the issue here. As I said, I did my edits in good faith, if they have an issue I suggest they take it up with either DRV or RFAR. --Martintg (talk) 11:25, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I asked User:William M. Connolley to clarify, and he believes this is in fact clearly a breach of the 3RR rule, constituting 4RR: . So I'm still wondering if you could explain why this does not count. PasswordUsername (talk) 18:54, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm appalled at the level of admin shopping exhibited by both PasswordUsename and Offliner, unhappy with the result on AN3, they come here and getting no result here they attempt to wikilawyer their case on User_talk:William M. Connolley, I've posted my response over there. A revert is defined as "a the page being restored to a version that existed sometime previously". In no way can this alleged 4th revert that PasswordUsername cites be construed as revert, it did not restore it to a previous version, but aligned and improved the text  (made in conjunction with this, why hasn't he cited this change as a revert too?) to what the source actually says, i.e. China was the principal backer of the Khmer Rouge, and the US action did not imply approval of the regime's policies.  --Martintg (talk) 20:51, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm appalled that you can't see the difference between clarifying a point of policy by a confused user and admin shopping and unimpressed by your automatic assumption of bad faith. I was clearly too lenient with you and I accept that I may have been interpreting the policy too narrowly, so I probably should have blocked. I have been away and you are not currently editing the article so blocking you would be punative but If you return to revert warring on communist genocide I'm going to block you. OK? Spartaz Humbug! 12:40, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:AGF guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of contrary evidence, and I can cite several recent instances of similar behaviour resulting in closed cases being over turned after representations to another admin. Most notorious was a recent AE case against an individual that was reopened and expanded after representation to several other admin's talk pages, resulting in sanctions imposed on half a dozen others (including myself). In the end all the sanctions were vacated after there was an uproar over the mishandling of the whole thing. --Martintg (talk) 01:05, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I guess we're agreed regarding the reverts and I accept that blocking now would be punitive. Thanks for looking into it. PasswordUsername (talk) 17:56, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Malik Ambar DRV
Sorry for not speaking up earlier... I don't believe the submitted picture is acceptable. The uploader, did state during the discussion that he would seek out the book with the "the picture in Shaikh Chand's book". The picture he submitted is the same controversial picture that was from a newspaper front page, simply with the colour removed (It has the same flaw in the lower left edge as the one he uploaded in colour). It would seem odd for any book to have a Photo of Malik Ambar, seeing as the history of photography mentions that the camera was developed 100 years later. May I ask the previous DRV be reopened or should I restart another including all other images purported to be of Malik Ambar? Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 19:54, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it would make sense to start fresh. Its going to be too confusing otherwise. Spartaz Humbug! 21:27, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

List of Futurepop artists
Hi. I notice you recently closed Articles for deletion/Futurepop as delete and deleted the article Futurepop. List of futurepop artists was also part of the nomination, as its existence is of course completely dependent on the existence of a futurepop article. I was wondering if you plan to delete that as well, or if I need to nominate it through other channels (such as CSD #G8). --IllaZilla (talk) 15:00, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * An oversight that I have now corrected. Thank you for pointing it out. Best wishes Spartaz Humbug! 15:46, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of Futurepop
I'm sorry, but I'm getting a bit frustrated at this point. I don't see a consensus to delete in Articles_for_deletion/Futurepop, and there was only one objection to a merge with electronic body music — but since the article has (again!) been deleted, I no longer have access to the article's history in order to work on that merge. Can I at least get it undeleted long enough to move it into my userspace? - Korpios (talk) 18:35, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * replied on your talk page Spartaz Humbug! 19:43, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for doing that — but I don't suppose I can get the page history to go along with that snapshot, so I can see what might have come before? But no, the goal was never to merge without sources; I wanted to be able to take the time to clean the writing up with documented sources before merging.  I'm not arguing against WP:NOR or WP:N or WP:V. - Korpios (talk) 21:22, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * ER, I'm not generally very keen on moving article histories when I userfy articles because of the risk of losing the page history if the article gets recreated. Its important to keep the history in the right place to comply with Wikipedia's license. I had a quick deco and I didn't see anything very exciting in the page history. Let me know if you really need a look and I suppose I can do a temporary undelete for you to view the history. Would that be OK? Spartaz Humbug! 22:04, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure, that would be fine. Thanks for being accommodating; I know you're just trying to fairly apply policy.  Now I just have to do some research! - Korpios (talk) 01:36, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of SOD/CAT
I don't understand, the article had just been relisted for debate. I had hardly even responded to the two entries that were made and Dr. Vickers had not even had the opportunity to remove his false statement when the article was withdrawn. Please reverse the deletion so that the debate may continue until a concensus may be reached. RGK (talk) 20:48, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * How odd, the debate wasn't swapped over to the new log when I closed it. At least it was still showing at AFD/OLD. RELIST makes it clear that relisting is to facilitate the development of a consensus and the two comments after the relisting were firmly on the delete side. This created a consensus and there is no reason for me to go and undo this as we now have a clear outcome. Spartaz Humbug! 21:56, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * But what about giving the two people who entered their delete responses time to consider the responses to their statements. This sudden delete without permitting time to review comments smacks of meatpuppets. RGK (talk) 22:27, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Its smacks of nothing more then a relisting mishap. Feel free to ask them if they want to change their stance but unless they do I'm afraid that we now have a clear outcome. Spartaz Humbug! 22:33, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Could you please elaborate on "relisting mishap." What should have happened? RGK (talk) 23:39, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * As the last person to favor delete, I have to say that not only have I not changed my mind, but I've proposed it for deletion two more times as Cell Guard and Ageless Beauty (Dietary Supplement). Novangelis (talk) 02:47, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * lol, my wife might have a word or two about thta but thanks for the recognition :-) Spartaz Humbug! 20:55, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Crowdspring
Hey Spartaz. Could you move the deleted article to my userspace for me please? I'm going to throwin a couple sources ( and for example) and recreate. The company is definitely notable. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:30, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You can find it at User:ChildofMidnight/crowdspring. producing these sources at the AFD would most likely have altered the outcome - I'm a sucker for sources being produced - so just ping me when you are ready since I can just void the AFD outcome without needing the chore of a DRV if the new article meets the grade. Spartaz Humbug! 16:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I agree the sources would have changed the AfD. Better late than never. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:16, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of The Beatles' wives
I am surprised at the result of the debate for the article The Beatles' wives. As it says in the nomination, this is not a majority vote. I felt that I had answered the points raised by the nominator and his supporters and my view appeared to be unchallenged. I would be interested in your interpretation on this matter. I would have welcomed a longer debate given the diversity of articles on the Beatles. Cjc13 (talk) 11:18, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Not a vote of course but when 4 out of 5 argue deletion and question the relevance of the article its a brave admin that ignores that for an assertion of notability that does not produce any sources discussing the subject (beatles' wives collectively) in depth. Spartaz Humbug! 16:46, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you need sources for notability of the Beatles ? I think most people have heard of them and of at least some if not all of their wives. I was not aware of sources quoted by the other side or that the lack of sources was being queried. I had the feeling that the page was originally created to avoid having to put too much on the main page for The Beatles. It seems odd to dismiss an article so closely related to the Beatles as trivial. I felt their was a lot more to be said in the discussion and was hoping for a relisting at least as my points had not been answered. Thanks for the reply. Cjc13 (talk) 17:10, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Who are the Beatles again? Seriously, the Beatles are clearly notable but are their wives collectively? Surely there must be references discussing them collectively if they are. Otherwise its just a useless list / disambiguation page that 4 out 5 editors felt had no value. There is no real need to relist something like that when there is a clear viewpoint from the discussion. Spartaz Humbug! 17:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * There are various fan pages, such as Beatle wives, The Beatles Wives Page and The Beatles First Wives Club, and from the internet movie data base "E! True Hollywood Story" Beatle Wives (1999) but I am willing to accept your explanation of the outcome of the discussion. Cjc13 (talk) 19:19, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, none of those references meet WP:RS which is the standard we use to judge sources being used to demonstrate notability but thank you for being reasonable about the close. Spartaz Humbug! 19:22, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I would have thought WP:N was more relevant, as there are enough sources to verify the facts in the article. The TV programme would provide an independent source and is included in Wikipedia in the list of subjects for E! True Hollywood Story. There are also plenty of references in the newspapers to "Beatle wife", or "Ex-Beatle wife" in the case of Heather Mills, but as I say I am willing to accept closure of the discussion. Cjc13 (talk) 20:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

user:HAl
Could you please review some of the background information of this case. Most specifically here and here. And then conversation with admin StevenJ here and here. Sorry if you have already done this.Scientus (talk) 20:33, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Why? Whaty exactly are you looking for me to do? If the RFC leads to a consensus then your editing disagreement is ended. No? Spartaz Humbug! 20:39, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd just like to comment on the edit warring at the Office Open XML article. It's been completely out of control for a year or more. I'd like to see some oversight of the article by independent Wikipedians. I'm not sure how that can be arranged. Otherwise we have a small group of people preventing editing by the wider community. Regards,  Lester  09:06, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The RFC is a good start as the page will be watch listed by those participating and then you can always seek further input from wikiprojects and ask for third opinions. In extremis you can seed mediation. I'm not patient enough to police something like this but I could see that the edit warring needed to stop. Locking an article to force discussion is a blunt tool that I would prefer to avoid though so its not going to be used often. Spartaz Humbug! 15:58, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Spartaz, for your advice on dispute resolution.-- Lester  22:20, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

-logy
Hi, Spartaz. In Articles for deletion/-logy, you closed as keep but did not provide any explanation. Re-reading the discussion, it appears to me that the keep arguments were considerably weaker (in particular, not grounded in policy) than the deletion arguments. Can I ask what your reasoning was? Powers T 15:49, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * There clearly was no clear consensus to delete the article so I had a choice between no-consensus and keep. This was a messy discussion with lots of badgering by the delete side in particular and pretty pictures demonstrating I don't known what but I am extremely reluctant to delete sourced content when there is no clear consensus to do this and this article clearly fell within a range where the closing admin has some discretion to choose between the remaining outcomes, I felt the sourcing in the article led towards keep rather then no-consensus as the outcome. I'm a sucker for sources but generally fairly (if not very) deletionist otherwise so I can't say I felt any particular prejudice for keeping or deleting the article but thats how I read the close. I'd also suggest that AFD is a poor venue to decide generally where we go with this type of articles and I'd strongly recommend a clear consensus somewhere like a wikiproject or the VP to inform future discussions. I also think the delete side would look better if they toned down the aggressive badgering of the keep side. Spartaz Humbug! 16:09, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your answer. Wolfkeeper alone, I think, was responsible for most of the badgering, and I agree it makes the delete argument look bad, but I think you should have discounted that for that reason.  It shouldn't affect the merits of the arguments if one person (for whatever reason) feels the need to respond to every point raised.  Anyway, if I may ask, what category of articles do you mean by "this type"?  Powers T 19:23, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that I'm a bit old fashioned, if you behave badly then I find it hard to give full weight to the opinions being espoused. That's a generic you of course, my experience of your editing conduct over the years has always been positive. Good argument should stand on its own and being overly emphatic and unnessecerily aggressive just looks like you are lacking confidence in your own arguments (being generous) and that's not impressive for me. It probably comes because my RL job involves constantly assessing and testing the veracity of stories and documentation presented to me and watching for bad behaviour or subtle distraction techniques that are designed to throw you off the scent becomes second nature and hard to leave at the door not matter how hard I try to assume good faith on Wikipedia. In case of the user you mentioned, I'm afraid my reserves of good faith are approching empty, their last comment on DGGs talk page to a good faith editor on the other side of the deletion/retention side was just plain nasty. Amd this type is a non-standard article where there is a group of similar articles whose merits are roughly similar. AFD is a bad place to discuss the merits of suffix type articles because AFD works best assessing sources and articles against policies. My experience is debates about whether articles are expanded dicdefs for transwiki or viable content are rarely good discussions and often don't leave the closing admin with an obvious conclusion to declare. The whole question of the boundary between Wiktionary and Wikipedia is the discussion we need to have if we want to sort out these articles as a clear standard to measure them against would make the whole keep/transwiki debate much more straightforward. Spartaz Humbug! 19:38, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I have tried to initiate such discussions before to little avail, unfortunately. Powers T 21:05, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/John Devae
You closed this AfD as no-consensus only 17 hours after it was relisted to gather more consensus. Why? - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 08:36, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Ciao, Spartaz. I relisted both Articles for deletion/John Devae and Articles for deletion/Coming Up Easy which you closed shortly after. I have no problem with your closes, just wondering if there are relisting conventions I am not aware of, or if we are otherwise inadvertently working at cross-purposes. Cheers, Skomorokh  13:51, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Cross purposes I think. Must have been having a senior moment as they were still on the previous AFD log and I must ahve misread the date. Feel free to reopen them. I'm just stepping out for the evening so don't have time. Spartaz Humbug! 17:53, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Traditional marriage movement
Many users commented on Articles for deletion/Traditional marriage movement; they were about evenly and deeply divided on both the correct outcome and the reasoning. Serious arguments were made on either side. Nevertheless, you closed it only a perfunctory statement that "[t]he result was delete." Not only is that counterintuitive (there was, quite plainly, no consensus to delete), but you made no effort to explain why you thought the result was to delete or why, in so hotly contested a discussion, one side had the better of it. I courteously invite you to take a second look. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 23:12, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Its a reasonable point that the close was too terse so I have expanded the closing rationale to explain why I reached the deletion conclusion. You are always welcome to produce further sources specifically about the Traditional Marriage Movement and I will happily use these to review the close. There was in fact a strong consensus there once the extraneous WP:ATA stuff had been excluded and it came primarily down to sourcing. The POV, OR and Coat-rack issues were all valid arguments but not conclusive because I usually expect to see a clearer consensus on that if we use them as the primary reason to delete articles. NEO is essentially a subset of stuff not being sourced and I didn't give that much weight. Spartaz Humbug! 05:38, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I was never told that the reviewers look at the strength of arguments rather than consensus. That is a comment I havent really seen before. I find it abit like popular vote vs. electoral college; a rule that seems to pop up at unexpected times. I would have been happy to further the debate by bringing up issues. I think you should also consider that it is an article in development and that the high degree of contentiousness in the editting process prevents alot of documentation. Although ideally I saw this article as addressing the the high degree of censoring of a 'traditional marriage' article. Certainly if there is a same-sex marriage article there should be a traditional marriage article. However, apparently this has to be qualified by traditional marriage in the United States for people to believe that it refers to man-woman partnerships (despite the fact that over 99% of marriage in the world is precisely that). Also, I would like access to the articles history so that I could recover some of the references. Mrdthree (talk) 10:20, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * By definition all articles are under development but I'm happy to provide a copy in userspace somewhere as long as someone is actively working on it. You probably want to read WP:CONSENSUS. I don't as a matter of pratise provide article histories when I userfy something because there is a tendency for the history to get stranded in user space if the article is restored and that breaks our license but the references will be on the userfied version. Spartaz Humbug! 10:33, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I find this sort of weak. Is it original research to infer a traditional marriage movement from the long list of news articles about traditional marriage organizations and legal issues? Where is the border between neologism (where the exact phrase "traditional marriage movement" which has more limited citations, from published commentary work) and an article that collects political events regarding the groups advocating traditional marriage? If there is no traditional marriage movement in the united states what are the long list of news articles such as this addressing? http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS197294+17-Jul-2009+PRN20090717. The sort of contentious editting I was talking about was the fact that the editors requesting a delete will not allow the article to include references that do not specifically state "traditional marriage movement" in the article. They also delete any attempt to make a "traditional marriage" article. So they are the ones forcing the neologism in order to erase it. I would rather see it as a catch all phrase. The only catch all phrase they generously are willing to consider are ridiculous POV ones like "Opposition to same-sex marriage". Why state all that here? well your ruling was unexpected, and I was only aware through your actions that a consensus decision could be reached in so subtle a manner. Hence I, like others at the debate, counted votes and said, "why bother argue, there is no consensus." Mrdthree (talk) 10:47, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Having read the consensus article I have to say, I was unaware anyone was 'winning' the consensus, it was not plain to me and I wonder what efforts or recommendations were made by you or others for mediation? In other words since the movement plainly exists and is well documented, shouldnt you have made a better decision? Or referred it to someone who could? Other possibilities included renaming the article-- at least that would cut down the number of battles that now lie ahead. Mrdthree (talk) 11:00, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Is it well documented? Is there sourcing that specifically discusses the subject of the "Traditional Marriage Movement"? In detail, through reliable secondary sourcing? If there is, please feel free to draw my attention to the sources. The Civil-rights movement was a movement because, well, everyone worked in concert, there was an overarching method to coordinate activity and news paper articles, books and scholarly works can be cited discussing the "civil-rights movement". Can you say the same about this movement? Instead of attacking me and the decision how about producing a similar level of sourcing to that that can be produced for the civil-rights movement in just 5 minutes of casual google searching. Spartaz Humbug! 11:28, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Let's see. "traditional Marriage Movement" - Google scholar - two citations but clearly unrelated to this meaning. google news, zip, nada nil, bugger all. Amazon books One book on Christian theology so not clearly discussing the movement, a CD and something about judaism. Not very impressive is this.
 * "Civil-Rights Movement" 40,000 items in Amazon Google scholar 115,000 citations.
 * Can you see the difference???? Please stop with the badgering and go and find some sources. OK? Spartaz Humbug! 11:28, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * My point is the movement exists; this is undeniable. If your point is that the article is inappropriately titled, then say that and suggest the article be renamed. "Supporters of Traditional Marriage" gets tons of well-sourced hits in the United States. Why not suggest a renaming rather than a deletion? Mrdthree (talk) 11:58, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Prove the movement exists. I never heard of it but I'm not American. If you want to change the name you still need to find sources that discuss "supporters of traditional marriage" as a group. Have you got them? If you do go and write an article about them. Spartaz Humbug! 12:03, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This demand demonstrates that you have misconceived your role. Your function as closing admin is not to participate in the debate, but to determine what the consensus was. As user:Mrdthree and myself have pointed out, there was no consensus to delete; your conclusion that there was, and comments here, amount to participation in the debate rather than "us[ing] [your] best judgment, attempting to be as impartial as is possible for a fallible human, ... determin[ing] when rough consensus has been reached". - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 12:59, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Traditional marriage movement
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Traditional marriage movement. 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. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 12:54, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Britney Spears The Singles Collection
The result was to delete the page, yet all of a sudden a duplicate one is here. ---Shadow (talk) 03:16, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Its toast. Spartaz Humbug! 05:32, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I saw that you protected it from being re-created. Thanks. I was afraid someone would just re-add it. ---Shadow (talk) 06:09, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Jay Jennings
I saw that you deleted the article Jay Jennings which had reached a consensus regarding what to be done with the page. The overall discussion was to keep, but you deleted the page. I have added the discussion to the Administrators Noticeboard/Incidents.keystoneridin! (talk) 17:01, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Keystoneridin, please see the subsection above. Let us know if you see anything that can be done now to help improve the article. It looks like we should be all good when Timemachine has the chance to update the info on the unlinked newspaper sources. Maybe we can beat the noticeboard to the punch.Cptnono (talk) 17:04, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

All the newspaper articles and interviews have been e-mailed to cptnono. Hopefully this will help with the verifiable sources. Timemachine1967 (talk) 21:52, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for Jay Jennings
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Jay Jennings. 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. keystoneridin! (talk) 17:17, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Turks and Caicos Islands dialect
I added a reference to Turks and Caicos Islands dialect. You mentioned that they speak standard English there. This is true, of course, especially when they are speaking to people from outside the country, but they also speak the local dialect amongst themselves, particularly if they don't have much contact with people from outside the country. -- Eastmain (talk) 21:16, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Since I was staying with people who lived there and was spending a *lot* of time in local bars I have to say I had absolutely no impression of that. But then I was on GT and not Provo. Its an opinon not tablets of stone. Spartaz Humbug! 21:19, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That's a seriously impressive source by the way.... Spartaz Humbug! 21:22, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Please explain deletion
Can you explain why was deleted? As I explained on the talk page, Karla Bonoff's website specifically said that it was a press photo and was available for download and use. I also explained that I emailed her and I was soecifically given permission to use it on Wikipedia. Bubba73 (talk), 22:48, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You uploaded the image on a non-free license which is not acceptable for use on Wikipedia unless it meets very struicts conditions as outlined in WP:NFCC. Specifically it is almost impossible to use an un-free image of someone on wikipedia. What you need to do is to get the owner ofthe images license to release it on a non-free license. Instructions for doing this can be found at Donating_copyrighted_materials. I hope this helps. Spartaz Humbug! 07:10, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Really I think it is a free image. She distributes it as a publicity photo and on her website says anyone can download and use it. Just to be double sure, I asked her if it was alright to put it on Wikipedia and she said yes.  I probably should not have put in "fair use" because it is free anyway.  Bubba73 (talk), 14:33, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sure you will understand that I'm not a mind reader :-). We do need a specirfic license for it - we can't just assume we need to know exactly the terms of release and being released for use in Wikipedia is (cofnusingly) not enough as we need it on a re-distributable license to comply with our terms of use. Spartaz Humbug! 15:39, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Heyes.jpg
What needs to be addressed?--Sandor Clegane (talk) 13:03, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Its a canned FUR, one even says this film when its being used in Hopkins' bio. It doesnøt to my mind adequately explain why the image conveys something that cannot be expressed in words. It actually seems rather decorative. Spartaz Humbug! 15:41, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * For the Hopkins article, maybe, but I don't see how it's merely decorative for the article on Hannibal Lecter.--CyberGhostface (talk) 19:43, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * What does the image add that words cannot? Spartaz Humbug! 20:49, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It identifies the character. Nearly every fictional character article has one if its available, including featured articles.--CyberGhostface (talk) 22:20, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Shek Mun Estate
You asked to be prodded a week after your suspension of debate in the Articles for deletion/Shek Mun Estate discussion. The one-week anniversary of your message was yesterday, so consider this your requested prod. Also, I believe that WP:HK have now come to a consensus regarding articles about public housing in Hong Kong. Thryduulf (talk) 15:07, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I think they need a redirect and merge do they not? Spartaz Humbug! 15:41, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Multi-article deletion?
Hey. I just saw you closed Articles for deletion/List of schools offering the International Baccalaureate Diploma Programme (2nd nomination) as delete. There were three other articles associated with the AFD; shouldn't they be deleted as well? &mdash;  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 19:16, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * yes, I guess. Spartaz Humbug! 19:18, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Er, IB World School was also in the AfD. Sorry to be a pain... &mdash;  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 19:21, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No its OK, I'm just being gormless today. Spartaz Humbug! 19:22, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Metrolink maps
I'm curious, given that any of our skilled mappers could create a free map based on the proposals (our existing maps of London Underground stand as evidence of this), how there can be any doubt over the replaceability of these images. It isn't as if they're iconic in their own right (as the original Tube map is). 81.110.104.91 (talk) 22:00, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Maps based on the proposals would still be derivitive works so they would still be unfree but I just wasn't comfortable deleting them without a discussion since the uploader made a reasonable defense that needed wider discussion. Your next step would be WP:FFD Spartaz Humbug! 04:56, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Lilly Ann
Inre this deletion diff, might you care to visit the discussion over at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard and let them know your reasoning? It would be quite rare for an adult star to receive an in-depth review in Washington Post, and your closure seems to contradict their saying that certain adult media may be considered RS in context to what is being sourced, and suitable for meeting WP:GNG in these cases... though they do not use the term "skin mag". MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 00:37, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * There was no mention of a Washington post article in the page I deleted. I'm confused. Spartaz Humbug! 04:59, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No indeed there was not and I did not mean to confuse. It is just that sources are judged in context to what is being sourced, and one would expect to find coverage about adult stars in publications that deal with adult stars. We do not then expect coverage of adult stars in sources that focus on other subjects.  IE: Playboy, Penthouse, and Hustler cover adult models... while Washington Post or New York Times might have coverage national politics. From the above linked discussion at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, I read some of the sources you refer to as skin mags are actually acceptable in determing the meeting of WP:GNG in these instances.  Your closing comment at the AfD ran contrary to this, and I wished your input at the discussion. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 07:00, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not really interested in being drawn into discussing the various levels of fact checking in adult magazines but I'm sure I wouldn't be the only user who would be extremely dubious about accepting commentary in these publications as reliable sources for the purposes of establishing N. Spartaz Humbug! 09:47, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sure your feelings in the matter are not new and I accept that others may feel the same way. However, it seems likely that such discussions have already taken place in the past and that a consensus was reached.  Though you are not interested in entering a new discussion about such publications being considered RS in context to the subjects at hand, might you accept the results of that consensus, even though it did not reflect your views?  MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 20:21, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing an established consensus at the discussion you are pointing to but any consensus needs to be reached at WP:RS as that is the relevant guideline. Has that happened? Spartaz Humbug! 20:24, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I do not believe that the most recent discussion is the only time the subject hs been discussed. The reliable sources noticeboard would seem to be the place to discuss reliable sources. Yes? MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 22:05, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Can yu point me to another discussion that established a consensus for this? This is more a policy thing then enforcement so I'd say that you need to have this discussed at the guideline talk page and maybe add a line or two to the guideline if you wanted this to gain any traction. Just my opinion. Spartaz Humbug! 05:55, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Common Sense would seem to indicate that this is not the first time the subject was ever discussed. Sorry, I do not wish to slodge through 8 years of archives, so perhaps you will yourself direct me at the discussions that show there was no consensus. I have been told that the reliable sources noticeboard is the specific place where reliable sources are to be discussed, and not the guideline's talk page. Since you refer to Penthouse, Playboy, and Hustler as skin mags, and are dubious of their being trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the field in which they specialize, the RSN is the pace to discuss how they do or do not meet guideline. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 20:55, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Err per WP:ONUS since you are the one arguing that adult mags count a sreliable sources its down to you to show that there is a consensus to support this. If you a serious that I need to consider this consensus you need to present it to me - especially as the discussion you raised didn't come to a clear conclusion that supported your POV. Traditionally, guideline pages are the place to debate the finer points but the proliferation of noticeboards is adding extra confusion since I'm not interested in arguing the toss about venues its not really anything I'm interested in pursuing. Spartaz Humbug! 21:25, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Err... yes, I am seeking clarification... but only based upon your closer's summation "I'm not buying the idea that appearing in a skin mag is reliable sourcing....." That's why I went to the forum where that question is being answered. Thank you. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 02:52, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Schwa (restaurant)
Hey Spartaz. Could you or one of your talk page stalkers move the deleted article into my userspace? When more coverage emerges I'd like to recreate. The restaurant and its chef seem to be quite notable. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:38, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure, but I'm not aware that I have any stalkers. Spartaz Humbug! 22:17, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You've got stalkers but we don't usually beat you to the punch on requests. 22:24, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * LOL Spartaz Humbug! 22:28, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Kosvinsky Mountain
Also, would you consider relisting this AfD to get a stronger consensus? There was only one comment for deletion and three to keep it. So your closure seems premature. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:43, 25 August 2009 (UTC) There seem to be numerous sources with a simple Google news search, so I'm not sure why you say it can't be verified. Are you confusing it with a different subject? ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:53, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Most of the googke references are trivial or repetitious. They are not sufficiently detailed enough to pass the notability threshold for this subject. Spartaz Humbug! 22:13, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Empire Square Tower
Could I also get this article moved to my userspace? One of the delete's was "per nom" and other than that there was one delete vote and a keep vote (based on substantial coverage in reliable sources). Seems like a bad close. Maybe you should participate in the discussions so you can offer up your opinion? ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:12, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Although yu asserted that there was substantial coverage of the subject, its doesn't appear that the other users contributing agreed with you and the comments indicated they had reviewed the sources before reaching that position. Spartaz Humbug! 22:15, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Random
Fairly new, so I hope I'm not violating various Wiki-traditions by saying so, but: wow ya sure like to DELETE articles, eh? Cramyourspam (talk) 03:36, 26 August 2009 (UTC)CramYourSpam.
 * No not particularly but someone has to close the deletion discussions and I seem to do a lot of it recently. Spartaz Humbug! 05:56, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for closing the discussions whether it be delete or not. I imagine it's like a baseball umpire where people don't always praise on the hours thinking and making the right call. --Marc Kupper&#124;talk 06:41, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No, of course not, someone is always going to be sore whatever you do. Spartaz Humbug! 18:30, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Reason
Dear, I frankly would like to know the reason for quickly changing your decision, while concluding the debate for Article Sarfaraz Khan Marwat. At first you concluded, while deciding to Keep and later, quite soon you decided it to be Delete. So what was the actual reason, in adopting the right decision later? --LineofWisdom (talk) 09:14, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I use an automated script close AFDs and clicked on the wrong button. I therefore rolled back and did the close properly. The reason why I deleted the article was because the deletion side had clearly better policy based arguments. You pointed out that there could be automatic notability as an ex-offico member of parliament but acknowledged that this was unsourced. If it had been sourced I would have relisted the discussion to explore the point of whether ex-officio was enough to meet our notability standards (i.e. I would have given your argument more weight then the delete votes because it was better based on policy). Since there was no source the statement effectively notability by assertion so weaker then the evidence based delete votes. What this means is that if you can produce a reliable source that confirms the subject was nominated by Gen Zia as discussed I will void the AFD close and relist it to discuss that specific point of whether ex-offico is sufficient to meet the notability requirement. Spartaz Humbug! 09:32, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * My dear friend Spartaz you are confusing two different users. It was me who voted the keep on that particular article. I am 100% positive that the gentleman remained a member of the parliament in that era but I couldn't find a source for that on the internet. However, my conscience forced me to vote a Keep. On the other hand the above user LineofWisdom was the one who nominated that article for an AFD and while he was enjoying a week ban for sockpuppetry this AFD was blanked by some unknown IP. Once again I was the one who reverted this blanking of the AFD and hence a Delete vote was reached afterwards. Just to set the records straight.--  MARWAT   16:19, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Dear, Spartaz, I welcome your Deletion verdict, as seekd by me while nomintaing the article. Yes, I was banned and blocked, though so far, despite challenging various Operators and Administrators the allegation of using sockpuppet has never been proved and wouldn't ever as I never used. Even, (just suppose) if I have used, does it means that nomination be declared void, wether it doesn't meet the wikipedia's notbility requirements? I was banned for 7 days, doesn't this means, (if usppose it the block was justified) that I be given a chance to behave as a good Wikipedian? I would appreciate in encouraging users / editors, rather going in negative way behind them forever. I would like to be a ood editor so I could make others get benefited from my edits. --LineofWisdom (talk) 19:05, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Harald Pagancoss
You closed Articles for deletion/Harald pagancoss with delete. The article was moved during the discussion meaning you deleted the redirect but not Harald Pagancoss. Can you handle this or should I CSD?

BTW - do you know if this means I can CSD User:Hpagancoss and User:Harald Pagancoss that had identical content or do they both need to go through a full MFD? --Marc Kupper&#124;talk 06:38, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You need MFD for user pages but we are much more relaxed about material in user space so this needs to eb doing some actual harm before you try and have it deleted. Spartaz Humbug! 18:29, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of MakBit Virtual CD/DVD
Hi.

There are thousands of articles you can correctly tag as advertising. In Wikipedia we can find promoting articles being published in journals and multiple “independent” sources. The question is – what is the difference between advertising articles and notable articles?

Administrators do not delete many articles that promote someone’s business (for ex. Microsoft [exaggeration]). Why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Costic (talk • contribs) 11:16, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It's not about advertising but if there is WP:N. You are right in that there are thousands of articles that don't seem to qualify as WP:N. You can take a first step towards the cleanup by documenting evidence (or lack of) of notability and if it's a lack then hatting with Notable. There are also many articles that do pass WP:N but at present are worded like advertisements. You can work on cleaning up the wording. --Marc Kupper&#124;talk 17:14, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * You can tag anything you like for deletion. Your article was irredeamably advertising so i deleted it. Wikipedia is not for advertising products. Articles must be written in an encyclopedia tone and need to demonstrate notability through sufficient reliable secondary sourcing to meet our inclusion standards. Spartaz Humbug! 18:28, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

point of order re:ASE
Umm.. why are we allowing him to lie? He hasn't 'retired', he's been blocked for two weeks (and I'm sure would have ended up as an indef within a week after returning) and denied unblocking. Not to mention that removing declined block requests isn't allowed... I dunno, I guess I just don't understand why we're allowing him to continue his martyr crap. As an aside, I think we all know he'll be back in a week, either under his name or a new one. → ROUX   ₪  14:35, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * We will see. but I can't see the harm. If he asks to have the page unlocked before the end of the two weeks we can restore the unblock request otherwise its rather moot. Spartaz Humbug! 16:40, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

support wiki
As closing admin, you might wish to know it's at DRV. --Cyber cobra (talk) 01:24, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Jay Jennings
I think the article recently deleted could meet BIO basic criteria requirement's since he has been the "subject of published secondary source material which...". His work has also won "critical attention" as laid out in the creative professionals guideline. I'm not sure if it is significant enough but I would like to access the article to follow up on the unlinked sources (the handful of newspaper write ups) and also to see if there is any more info related to the different film festivals mentioned. Even if he is not considered notable now it would be easier to modify the article for resubmission if his career progresses to the point where more RS are available if it was on hand. Can you point me in the right direction or email the article? Also, are the unlinked sources permissible per "linking to an established Wikipedia article about the source (the work, its author, or its publisher); or directly quoting the material on the talk page, briefly and in context" as mentioned at Citing sources or am I reading it incorrectly? Thanks for any assistance!Cptnono (talk) 06:45, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * how detailed are the sources? Sources have to be non-trivial. Um, otherwise I can look at this later if you could highlight the specific sources you want me to review. Spartaz Humbug! 18:01, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Not sure since they were not linked. I was going to take the articles and google keywords or see if the papers have an archive available. If it is just movie times it is not good enough but reviews or a feature would be of interest.Cptnono (talk) 00:48, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Anyone with a pulse could see by the verifiable resources that were cited on the article that it rightly deserved to be here. In fact, the consensus was to keep the article, yet it was still deleted, which makes no sense. What a rush it must be to to delete yet another notable person of record. This tells me that Mr. Jennings was not alone. After further research here, I realize that notable articles are deleted from here all the time by hypocritical editors and administrators. Being a newbie and a female, I can clearly see this is a little boy's club, where all of you compete against eachother to delete anyone you've never heard of regardless of how strong the reliable sources are.Timemachine1967 (talk) 04:05, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Please assume good faith on the part of other users, I have nearly 14,000 edits,have been an administrator for two years so I'd hope that you would at least assume that I have reasons for my actions. If you can't start from that premise please don't come abck her to comment as I'm not going to waste my time if you can't accept that reasonable people can discuss different interpretations of policy and rules without calling each other names. Spartaz Humbug! 05:47, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well now that the venting is out of the way ( Apologies for being a little boy but it doesn't help timemachine :) ), can you get a copy of the article over so we can throw it in a user subpage or keep personally to see if it can be improved? I don't think there are any defamation or copyright violations so "temporary review" should be OK. Also, not taking the incivility into account, let me know if there is anything that swayed you if you did have a chance to review the sources further.Cptnono (talk) 04:35, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The userfied article is in your user space and I'll happily review the close when you have some specific sources for me to look at. Spartaz Humbug! 05:03, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I'll see if I can find some stuff archived on the web.Cptnono (talk) 05:12, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

For starters, there are 8 reference links to sources on the web that are already established in the article, plus 2 external links, not to mention the 5 newspaper articles who's author, title, date and page were all cited. With the 4-1 vote to keep, Cunard added this on the deletion page: "Keep Passes WP:BIO per the (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jESiJEODVY0) interview on PBS. Cunard (talk) 05:15, 19 August 2009 (UTC)." Cptnono, thanks for staying on it. Timemachine1967 (talk) 05:28, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Film reviews do not a biography article make. Nor do web mentions or interviews as they are primary sources. See WP:RS. sources used to demonstrate notability have to be in detail about the subject of the article and be independent secondary sources from things like newspapers, books published by reputable publishing houses and there always needs to be an element of fact checking or peer review of the source which is why interviews, blogs and IMDB or wikipedia itself don't meet our RS guidelines. Spartaz Humbug! 05:47, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If coverage from secondary sources and significant critique of his work can be established it should be fine as mentioned in the notability guidelines. I am trying to get more info on the unlinked newspaper articles and more sources just to make sure there is 0 concern over verifiability or significant coverage. It is close, though. I think there is a way to contest a deletion, timemachine, but I would prefer just fixing it since every reader looks at an article differently and Spartaz does make a point. Any specific thoughts on what you think would get it up to par would be great, Spartaz.   Cptnono (talk) 07:13, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * To be honest if you clarify the sourcing I'm happy to restore the article on the spot and it can be played with in article space at your convenience. The simplest thing for me is for you to just list the sources here or, if its not an on-line ref, briefly summarise what's there and give me an indication of the depth of coverage we are looking at. Despite the comments to the contrary I'm not very interested in making the process difficult for you so you just need to bring me the sources. I'm busy and at work so I can't concentrate at it for long periods... so keeping it simple works best for me too. Spartaz Humbug! 07:51, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No worries and please don't spend anytime or get stressed (I'm sure you're fine!) er... feel obligated to respond at too many messages right now if you are busy at work. I'll see what I can find or maybe timemachine has copies of the articles and can describe the info.Cptnono (talk) 08:05, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

My friend and I, who are big fans of Mr. Jennings, have different copies of the newspaper articles about him (interviews, film reviews, ect...) At this point, since Cptono has shown interest in helping get this article up, the easiest thing for me to do is to scan and directly e-mail the newspaper articles to him and then he could see them all for himself and do the citing and whatever else needs to be done. I can see no other way around it. Mr. Jennings is an independent filmmaker and author. All of his footnotes were backed up by reliable sources that are still under references in his article, yet I keep hearing that they're not good enough, which is simply not true. I'm just adding to that, by sending Cptono the newspaper articles. The rest is in his hands. Plus the fact, Mr. Jennings did an interview about his book on a PBS newshow (which is up on YouTube). Cptono has seen it. So all I need is an e-mail address, otherwise we're stuck at square one, which is pointless and gets us nowhere. Because it seems without those articles, no one is willing to move forward and if we can't move forward then I suggest simply removing the article from Cptono's talk page and calling it a day, as I never anticipated that it would be this much trouble to add a well-known filmmaker and author to this site. By the way this article has been ill-treated, simply having me sift through all the newspaper articles and describe them to Cptono is meaningless, based on the treatment the earlier citations have been given, as if no one seems to believe the newspaper's validity, even though I cited the titles, authors, dates and page numbers. I just need a contact/e-mail address to send the newspaper articles. Timemachine1967 (talk) 09:09, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Sound like a plan. I enabled email so go to my user page then look for "email user" on the far left side of the screen. It will be under "toolbox". E-mailing users.Cptnono (talk) 09:27, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I just e-mailed you using on your user page, but it's only a message screen with no means of sending attachments, which is what I need to do. Please advise. Timemachine1967 (talk) 18:10, 20 August 2009 (UTC) All the newspaper articles and interviews have been e-mailed to cptnono. He will now look them over, edit the article, add what needs to be added, (along with the acceptable on-line refs) as well as, clarify the sourcing and summarise what's there. This will give you an indication of the depth of coverage so you can hopefully restore the article on the spot (as you stated earlier). Thank you. Timemachine1967 (talk) 21:48, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * my username at gmail com


 * Hey Spartaz : I have been doing some formatting, making some additions and NOTES, and looking into the sources. A few of the sources aren't bad. This is what I have noticed source wise so far:


 * Davidson, Ben (1999-09-10). "BH Resident's New Film Unearths Seedy Life of Loan Shark". The Beverly Hills Courier: pp. 1.
 * The Beverly Hills Courier is reliable. There are a couple lines from it that could be used in place of others if needed. The article is a feature on Jennings and his work on Loanshark, his technique, and education.
 * Bernard, Ethan (2000-03-02). "A Life in the Movies: A Life in the Movies: Beverly Hills director Jay Jennings shares secrets of his trade". Beverly Hills Weekly: pp. 8.
 * Beverly Hills Weekly is reliable. It is not the caliber of the LA Times but seems decent. Information is similar to the Courier story but is a longer interview.
 * Amiran, Eyal (2001-01-03). "Guerilla Filmmaking". Los Angeles Independent: pp. 1.
 * I love this source. It gives tons of information and is written well. Unfortunately, it is a free independent but it is part of the largest group of community papers in the LA area
 * "Best Bet". Los Angeles Times: pp. pg 5 sec around the westside. 1999-08-03.
 * This one is nothing but a blurb however it is literally the featured film in the "Best Bets" section of what do do around town for the weekend. The other few movies listed are simple text but this one is bolded, has an image, and is placed prominently on the page.
 * Real Orange". Presenter: Maria Hall-Brown and Ed Arnold . Real Orange. PBS. KOCE-TV, Huntington Beach, CA. 2009-06-24.
 * Cited the PBS interview but did not link due to copyright concerns. Maria Hall-Brown does a 5 minute interview with him regarding his book and collection. This on top of the film career asserts a little more noteworthiness.


 * I still need to vet a few more. I also want to pull more info from the film festivals (Digital event of Sundance jumps out). I can confidently say that Jennings has received some attention for his work. He seems to be a forerunner for lower-budget digital moviemaking. He loves his cult movie making image. I don't know if that is because he is no good or that is his preferred style since I have not seen his films :). Cptnono (talk) 02:48, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Follow-up: Not terribly impressed with these but they aren't bad.


 * Berlin, Loreen (2009-08-07). "Knott’s Berry Farm: The Early Years", Buena Park Independent (pg 5). Retrieved on 2009-08-12.
 * I cannot find much info on this paper and assume it is a small independent as titled. It is a good story though. It compliments all of the info in the PBS video regarding his book.
 * Not currently used source
 * He had a review of Loanshark in the New Times LA alternative weekly paper. I typically look down on these as sources (even though I read them form time to time) but an independent film with a concise review in an independent paper seems reasonable. At least it is a little more covereage.
 * Amiran, Eyal (2000-09-20). "The Silver Screen comes to Silver Lake". Los Angeles Independent: pp. 2-3.
 * Again with the LA Independent. Looks respectable enough but it certainly isn't the times. He got a quick mention regarding his film being screened at the Silver Lake Film Festival.


 * Overall, it looks like he meets the minimum requirements. The online sites make it more than local coverage but of course some bigger name coverage would be great. He's an indy/cult guy who had coverage of his films which have screened at good festivals for the genre. He is also an author of a book. We are looking at an article that could use clean-up but is better than a stub. Would you consider allowing inclusion based off the information provided above? I'll still look for some more regardless but wanted to see what you thought.
 * notes are CAPPED. A little ref work. A few line adjustments. User:Cptnono/Jay Jennings. Cptnono (talk) 02:13, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank God that review is closed. Please review it if you have a chance. I know you have plenty of stuff on your plate here and IRL so let me know when you review the emailed articles. I also wanted to ask you directly about a couple sources but I can brink it up at the RS noticeboard if you are too busy. It looks like there are to film focused webzines that could be used. These look more credible than blogs since there is a vetting staff and one of them is a (quasi?) professional writer. and the previously seen . I did see some true blogs that go into detail on the IFC and film festivals and am ignoring them. Jennings also wrote a 4 page piece for Cinefantastique that I was going to include.Cptnono (talk) 00:23, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Transitioning Applications to Ontologies
Hiya, I noticed you closed all of these as delete. However, I did raise the point that one of them, SQO-OSS, did appear to have reasonable sources, as shown here:. I didn't really make much of an issue about it at the time, but to my mind there's clearly enough to meet the GNG. Unfortunately there wasn't much discussion on this particular page so it may have got overlooked. If you could have another look at it that would be great. Cheers. Quantpole (talk) 10:59, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Gosh - didn't think you'd get 3 sections about the same thing! 17:42, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I looked at that but wasn't clear that the sources were non-trivial and specifically about the project. can yu do me a favour since I'm going out and isolate a couple of the best sources for me since its hard to evaluate sources from a google search? I'll revisit that article after you do this if this is OK? Spartaz Humbug! 17:59, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah sure, should probably have expanded on them more in the AfD. The following look decent to me:, , , . There are also a lot of foreign language articles, that seem to be in fairly good detail, but I can't tell what they say! Quantpole (talk) 08:29, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

BUMP! Quantpole (talk) 07:48, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, beena very busy talk page recently and I missed some stuff. Will try and look at this later today. Spartaz Humbug! 04:57, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The register isn't a reliable source and I can't see anything at the last one but the first one looks pretty decent. Are there more where that came from`Spartaz Humbug! 17:50, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Deleting - Transitioning Applications to Ontologies
I saw that you deleted the article "Transitioning Applications to Ontologies " and several others. However, there was no clear consenus reached and there certainly were a number of "keeps' so, when I interpret the rules correctly, it should have been kept. Also there was still discussion going on about the vocabulary used. But it is bit difficult to discuss something that has been deleted. I am sure that a discussion about how to best integrate/write articles about important projects on Wikipedia is much more productive than just deleting them in the Holiday period (a lot of Europeans are on Holidays). Discussion  could lead to better content of Wikipedia and potential more good contributors. So please restore the articles, and try reaching consensus first on this matter. Ademmen (talk) 10:39, 19 August 2009 (UTC) There were enough "keep" votes by people who though that could be repaired. The discussions were about several issues and I tried to focus on the vocabulary issue first in the discussion and only on the Ontopoly article. It was not clear that the other - unrelated - articles would be deleted too. But ins the slip stream of that Ontoploy article also the others are removed. Did not they deserve a discussion of their own? The message send to article contributors was also misleading. It did tell them the Ontopoly article was under review, not naming the article they actually contributed to. But my main point is that according to Wikipedia rules one should try to reach consensus first and not delete articles on which there clearly is no consensus. I also do not see the need to not give the authors time to improve the articles. There is nog need for this speedy delition in these cases. As said I think (most of the) articles could be repaired, but unfortunately they are destroyed beyond repeair now. But my main question is: why did you delete an article on which disscussion is still going on and that has a number of "keeps"? Ademmen (talk) 05:44, 20 August 2009 (UTC) May I kindly suggest you look at the voting again? There were at least two "keeps" and one "keep and merge". Could you also look at the discussion? It surely was not closed: there were positive comments on my comments: positive in that there was a dialog about the issues. There was no consensus yet, but it was not unlikely that it could have been reached. The discussion was not about whether the articles had enough references, but whether that could be fixed or not and how it should be fixed if it was fixable. Ademmen (talk) 08:13, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Multiple non-trivial independant reliable soources?
 * No there weren't otherwise I would have kept it. There were no sources and nothing you say can change the fact that our core inclusion standard is to properly source your articles if you want to keep them. Like it or hate it, that's the way we work and you won't make any headway unless you go with that flow. So please provide some decent (by wikipedia standards) sources so I can deal with this. Multiple nominations are common and reasonable and the link to the actual discussion is standard. Spartaz Humbug! 06:20, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Where do you suggest I redirect the article or merge it too? There doesn't seem to be very much in the way of reliable sourcing and that's a problem if you want to restore the article. Spartaz Humbug! 22:05, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

KnowARC and Articles for deletion/Transitioning Applications to Ontologies
Hi there; I see that you decided to delete KnowARC article despite all the arguments I provided in favor of keeping it. May I know why? This article did not write anything incorrect, did not violate any copyright, and in general contributed to Wikipedia as much as many others. Moreover, it was a part of the WikiProject_European_Union. I trust you consulted that project before doing this damage. I would appreciate if you can spend time recovering the article, thanx in advance! oxana (talk) 12:08, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Multiple independant reliable sources? Spartaz Humbug! 17:54, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't understand the question. Do you seek multiple independent reliable sources of information on this specific project? This is a specific EU project, most reliable source of information is the EU database which I can link, of course - but trust me, I am the one who submitted this information there, and I am the co-author of the project proposal and the project Board member. In this context, independent sources will have unreliable information, by definition. This is like questioning a woman about her child's birthday and requesting multiple independent information sources confirming it ;-) oxana (talk) 20:29, 19 August 2009 (UTC) ... aha, I had to read also the comments above. My point is still valid: reliable information is within the EU directory, e.g. in this factsheet. Unfortunately, even that factsheet is not up-to-date, as the project has had 3 official amendments by now. If not this unfortunate deletion, Wikipedia had a chance to be the most accurate reference about this project. oxana (talk) 20:43, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Being published in an EU journal doesnt make you notable. Notability in wikipedia terms is asserted by showing that the subject of the article has been written about in detail by multiple reliable independant sources (i.e peer reviewed journals, broadsheet press, books published by reputable publishing houses). Wikipedia has very specific meaning for there terms and they are crucial to navigating our internal processes. I'm sorry that I didn't have time to explicitly reference the polices for you earlier but you need to understand what we need to see to demonstrate notability as this is a core requirement to meet our inclusion standards if you are to make any headway here. Spartaz Humbug! 22:22, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

As you see, people are really trying to understand what to do. Please allow them enough time to understand this and restore the article so they can work on this. I do understand the strange Wikipedia rules, and strange they are. I wrote my first article (on a non-English Wikipedia) three years ago and did spend the last few days to reread all the new Wikipedia rules, recommendations, and other stuff. And, according to the rules, these articles should not have been deleted. What I would like, and what is completely ignored, is that there is a discussion about what Wikipedia notablity means for these projects. (Do not tell me the rules are clear, I did read them, thank you). And how they can be advised to contribute good material. All these projects did contribute material to Wikipedia in good faith untill now. Telling them that can and perhaps should be improved is OK. Deleting the articles within five days, and thus punishing them for not having spend three days on reading all the Wikipedia stuff is not the right way to get good contributions to Wikipedia. It is, however, the right way to make a lot of people very angry, and that is not good for Wikipedia. So please, restore the Knowarc article and work together with Oxana to make it a fine Wikipedia contribution that can be used as an example of how to do it right the Wikipedia way for thousands of others.

Ademmen (talk) 05:44, 20 August 2009 (UTC) More input: Google Scholar returns 47 citations. Please give us at least the chance to prove notability: the references that I added two days before the deletion act appear to be silently disregarded. oxana (talk) 18:41, 20 August 2009 (UTC) I am absolutely sure it is not your intention to "punish" people. And I did not want to suggest in an way that you intend to do that. But that is the way it is preceived by them. What I am suggesting is that with a little less bureaucracy What_Wikipedia_is_not things would go so much smoother in this case. Again I am sure it is not your intention to be bureaucratic. But again, this is the way it is preceived. Discussions between people who talk "different languages" take a long time. That does not mean they cannot come to consensus and solve the issues, it just takes time to understand each other's vocabulary. Please allow for that time. That is all I ask. Just let the flow flow a bit slower if the process seems to ask for it.In this case it could help Wikipedia so much. Ademmen (talk) 08:13, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Seven days not five now. I'd restore the article in an instant is someone produced some decent independent secondary third party detailed sources but I won't and can't look for them for and I'm not helping people who want to restore the articles if I don't show them exactly what we are looking for. My admittedly cryptic initial comment was because I had multiple challenges to recent closes and 10 minutes to respond before going out. I clarified when I had time and if you read my talk page you will see that a) I said I was going out and b) that sourcing is a real issue for deletion and that I have dished out lots of detailed helpful advice to editors on fixing deletions. Instead, I find that I'm punishing people (??). WTF? Spartaz Humbug! 06:21, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Spartaz, thank you for spending time to clean up Wikipedia and help the authors! I do however feel like being punished for something I didn't do. I hastily provided a number of references that were independent in my understanding (they were not written or published by the project members) and decent (published in serious media), nevertheless the article got deleted. A project that is barely 3 years old is very unlikely to appear in any book or scholarly study - it does not make it un-notable. Moreover, like it was mentioned in another discussion, any EU-funded project is notable by the mere fact it got funding (very few projects obtain it). Maybe Wikipedia should have an additional rule for this case? Will I be allowed to restore the article whenever the project collects sufficient amount of supporting texts, or is it banned forever? Anyway, here I repeat some of the "decent" references:, , , . There are several publications in peer-reviewed scientific journals and conference proceedings as well, but I'm afraid Wikipedia will deem them unreliable because the authors are affiliated with the project, like e.g. here:  oxana (talk) 08:21, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I wrote a really long answer to your earlier question this morning and it got lost somehow. I thought it was here but all the fuss over the other deletions made a bit of a mess of my day :-(. OK taking your points, I'm going to review the sources again when I'm not shattered after a 12 hour day and I will seek advice if there are any I am not sure about. Keep listing stuff as it comes up. The article isnt banned forever, deletion can be overturned instantly if sourcing can be found and I can also give you a copy in your userspace to work on. The consensus in the discussion was clear but I'm always happy to help restore content if we can do that. Spartaz Humbug! 19:06, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If it may help, I created a short KnowARC section in the Advanced Resource Connector article, complete with references. I would much prefer seeing it as a separate and larger article, I hope you will agree. oxana (talk) 13:12, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello Spartaz - any progress on KnowARC re-evaluation? Sorry if my postings above went unnoticed - I tried to keep them to one thread. oxana (talk) 22:35, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm,I did miss this, I'll try and find time to review this again today. Spartaz Humbug! 04:52, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * ~Sorry for the long delay. Lots going on. OK, I looked at the sourcing again. Is the Cern Courier a published magazine or just printed and circulated round Cern? Were the articles written by people connected to the project of by independents? ISGTW appears to be an online user submitted newsletter so wouldn't meet our reliability test. But I got the nature of the newsletter wrong? HPCWire is self submitted so it isn't an independent article. I have no objection to your recreating material at a more central location as the AFD simply tested the viability of the material as a standalone article. Its down to the editors of the page concerned to decide if the material is useful there. Spartaz Humbug! 04:45, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Maya Ababadjani
Somebody (you?) has deleted the article about Danish porn model Maya Ababadjani. This is a complete mistake. She appeared in many Danish films and was one one of the most discussed Danish porn models of her generation, with interviews on TV-talkshows and many articles in daily newspapers, periodicals, etc. The notable mainstream film journal Ekko, for example, published an article on her in its September 2004 issue (here is the online version: Helt almindelig og alligevel ikke). I pointed out on the discussion page why this article should not be deleted, but this was simply ignored and the article deleted. The article should be restored. --Minutae (talk) 23:58, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You made a plain assertion of notability without providing the sources to back them and the article I deleted had poor sourcing and there was a clear consensus by the participants of the discussion that they were not good enough. . The source you have given is OK but notability requires multiple sources. can you find up a couple more sources of the same calibre for me to look at since you stated that there are lots of news paper articles. (articles are better sources then interviews) Spartaz Humbug! 04:49, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You are asking for online sources, which is easier said than done, since most articles that were online back then are no longer online, for instance the article "De truer mig med døden - 19-årig pornostjerne fra Libanon chokerer danske muslimer", printed in national Danish newspaper Ekstra Bladet on January 29 2003 (you can call the Danish Film Museum's library for confirmation, it would be in their clippings archive). Here is a story from the website of Denmark's biggest TV-station, DR: Pornostjerne truet på livet. Maya Ababadjani's notoriety arises not just from her films but even more so from the controversy they ignited, with her alleged Muslim background leading to death treats from local Islamic groups, one of the local debates that led to the international Mohammad-caricatures controversy which exploded soon after. --Minutae (talk) 11:05, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Where did I demand on-line sources and you are making a good case for inclusion here. Its a shame this wasn't introduced into the AFD as it would likely have changed the outcome. I'm probably going to restore and relist for further discussion of the sources but I have a couple of other disputed closes to deal with first. Can you give me a couple of days to get round to this? Spartaz Humbug! 17:44, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You asked for "sources of the same calibre for me to look", and I took that to mean online sources. My mistake. No rush, the important thing is the end result. Just found one more good print source, an interview in the Danish magazine 360 grader #7, June 2003, which was published by The Danish Journalism Highschool. --Minutae (talk) 23:20, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, I restored and relisted the article. Its at Articles for deletion/Maya Ababadjani (3rd nomination). Thanks for your input. Spartaz Humbug! 04:24, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for looking into it! --Minutae (talk) 12:13, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Jay Jennings (Redux)
Spartaz...I noticed that, with a little help from myself, Cptnono has added a bunch of new citations, multiple reliable sources, and references to enhance the Jennings article's notability. Most of them have internal links on Wikipedia. Along with the newspaper articles he e-mailed you, could you please take a look at the article at: User:Cptnono/Jay Jennings and give your thoughts on the matter and how it can attain main space status. Thank you. Timemachine1967 (talk) 23:48, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * funny how you can be civil when you want something but cant stop throwing insults when you don't get your own way. i'll look at it but not right away as I have a couple of other requests to look at first. Spartaz Humbug! 06:23, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * More with honey than vinegar or something like that. Left you a comment a couple days ago way up your page (Jay Jennings #1). A few days won't kill anyone so let me know when you get the chance so I know which direction to go.Cptnono (talk) 01:09, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Cptnono...Looked around, didn't see a message. Do you have a link to it? Also waiting to hear from Spartaz regarding the newspaper articles you sent him, and the many new updated sources that have been added on the Jennings article. Most of which have internal links on Wikipedia. Timemachine1967 (talk) 09:47, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Subsection 43 on this page. 51 is the second one and this is the third. Talk pages can get cluttered. I'm thinking it is good and we can reintroduce it without Spartaz's approval but his input will probably make the article better and I would like to not rock the boat further. We also don't want to get the article locked down from being created without more hoops in the future. Even though I would full heartedly disagree but it could even be argued that we are wrong. Give it a few days and we'll see if the additional verification provides approval or at least some feedback on how to improve it.Cptnono (talk) 10:07, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I saw your comments, thanks. FYI: Two more references were added from articles about Mr. Jenings and his Knott's book from the Orange County Regsister, a major and influential SoCal newspaper. Timemachine1967 (talk) 18:40, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Sparatz, you have time to lock the article but not to provide any feedback? I understand you might be sick of it? that is what happens when you delete an article enough people think should stay. If you can review the sources without your judgment being clouded over the frustration from Timemachine you really should. If you cannot do this let us know so we can go an alternate route.Cptnono (talk) 21:44, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Proper feedback requires time to read the sources, research the publication and review our policies to double check the position on the sourcing. To do this properly requires more time then I can offer right now as I need to do it in one go. I'm moving (country, not just house); finishing off my job in Denmark, and doing stuff in RL too. Locking a page because someone can't abide by the outcome of a DRV doesn't take anywhere near that time. I'll get to it but you have to be patient if you want me to do it properly. We already had a DRV that was relatively clear but I'm still prepared to spend time on it but I also have some other requests that also deserve some time. Spartaz Humbug! 04:28, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That's what happens when I jump on Wikipiedia without enough coffee and I took the lock the wrong way. I was hoping that readding it in an improved form would be acceptable down the line and the protection would cause too much of a headache. After some thought though, making a quick mention at the general admin noticeboard (not the complaining one) would have been appropriate without your feedback anyways so it really isn't a problem. Also, I still read the deletion review as consensus that you did not make a mistake in deleting the article and nothing more. Good luck on the move!Cptnono (talk) 05:09, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

request for content of deleted article, 1632_writers
I've been told to contact "the admin who deleted the article". However, the last time I followed that advice, the person who summarised the vote relayed it to someone entirely different. For this afd http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/1632_writers, all I have is your name. Can you 'userfy' the article for my personal use, or tell me who can? (I'm also looking for 1632 battles and 1632 institutions.) That would be great. I will watch here for a response. Tkech (talk) 09:23, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't delete the content so its still there in the article history . You probably want WP:ND3. Spartaz Humbug! 22:08, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Nitichai Chamchoi
Just looking at this ...

... I'm not sure what more your looking for. There's no question this player exists. The team website listed him as a player. The newspaper articles dicuss the team and the player. Surely if your feel that you need better Thai to close, then you should defer to an another Admin. Nfitz (talk) 07:54, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Notability is asserted by multiple non-trivial reliable sources and there was nothing in your contribution to teh debate that allowed me to assess the depth of discussion of the subject although I did see the same article being used as a source for at least one other footballer up for discussion at the same time. This didn't give me any reason to give the source more weight them the delete votes. The point of my closing statement was that I was not bound by the numerical outcome since AFD is not a vote and that I would be willing to revisit the close when given more detail about the sources. Sources don't have to be in English but they do need to be explained if you want to use them. Spartaz Humbug! 22:12, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: Articles for deletion/Maya Ababadjani (3rd nomination)
Hi there. Your nomination here confused me. Did you mean to post this at DRV? Or are you simply renominating because you restored the article? My general impression is that the deleting admin has the discretion to restore an article, particularly a recently-deleted one, if the reason for deletion no longer applies. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  13:20, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * There issue is whether the sourcing is good enough so relisting for community discussion is the way forweard. had the spurc ebeen presented at the AFD I would have relisted rather then deleted so putting the article back at AFD seemed the right thing for me to do. I believe admins have discretion to void their own closes and refer for further discussion and DRV isn't alwasy the right intermediate step. Spartaz Humbug! 17:16, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review/Log/2009 September 1
I notice that you referred an editor to permissions-en@undefinedwikimedia.com on this page. I hope you don't mind that I have changed this to .org, the correct address. Stifle (talk) 15:05, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Doh. Thanks. I should know that by now :-o Spartaz Humbug! 17:05, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

closings on deletion review
Not that I generally disagree with what you say, but perhaps you are doing too high a proportion of them.  DGG ( talk ) 03:24, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I looked through my contributions and I see that my early closes at DRV fall into 3 clear groups. Procedural closes - articles outside the purview of DRV; abusive nominations - I have consistently been closing them to avoid soapboxing and never had any complaints about it and, finally, early closes so we don't get bogged down in process and the nominator can go do what they need - the OTRS one was a case in point. I think this is the first time someone mentioned the early closes to me and I hadn't thought I was particulary out of kilter with expectations. I don't think we have a consensus on early closing criteria. Do you think it would be helpful to discuss this on talk-DRV and get some wider feedback on this? Otherwise, I will reflect on your point and be a little slower to act. Spartaz Humbug! 05:11, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi, chiming in here. Despite having enough support for your speedy WP:ND3 closes such as WP:Deletion review/Log/2009 September 2, I feel that the discussion at WT:Deletion review failed to cover the keep variants question adequately. There are two current discussions where editors wishing to overturn AfD merge closures to keep separate are referred to DRV; I added links to the existing WT:DRV discussion. Flatscan (talk) 06:00, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Reopen.
While I understand you think you are being useful somehow - by virtue of having a function and all - it nevertheless defies our oldest and most basic WP:TALK guidelines to close ongoing and unresolved discussions early. In the case of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Stevertigo/Obama and accusations of National Socialism, we are just now talking about it - mostly about how 80 percent of the votes on that page are from people who didn't bother to read the draft, and therefore have baseless opinions about it. So, now please restore it and User:Stevertigo/Obama and accusations of National Socialism, or I will take you to ANI. -Stevertigo 14:14, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * No. Spartaz Humbug! 14:15, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks! But before I take this up a level, I'll ask you to give a more.. concise explanation. A reason or two would suffice. -Stevertigo 14:16, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, its snowing, this clearly isn't going into mainspace. Spartaz Humbug! 14:26, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Stevertigo/Obama and accusations of National Socialism
Please reopen this discussion. It is generally inappropriate to close a deletion discussion after only a few hours, particularly one where so many of the !votes had no substantial policy basis. I was attempting to add my "keep" !vote when you closed the discussion. There clearly appear to be longstanding personal conflicts between editors involved in this dispute, another reason to allow broader community discussion. Worst of all, telling an editor he or she may not draft an article on an appropriate subject -- and this subject has undeniably been repeatedly discussed in mainstream American news media -- smacks of censorship and is inconsistent with basic Wikipedia principles. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:37, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * no, the article was never going into mainspace and there was already a very clear outcome to the MFD. I haved absolutely no interest in discussing this further while Stevertigo is behaving the way that he is. Go to DRV is you don't accept the close. Spartaz Humbug! 14:42, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That's really not an appropriate response, and doesn't address the points I made. Frankly, your reply implies you have a personal dispute with one of the main players, which would mean that you are not uninvolved and should not be taking administrative actions. Rather than heightening the unnecessary drama by opening yet another contentious discussion, I again ask you to allow the Mfd discussion to run its natural course, whatever differences you may have with other editors involved. Three hours was simply not adequate time for reasoned discussion. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:53, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I have no personal dispute with anyone involved despite stevertigo's best efforts to create them but I'm not going to discuss this if they are determined to create an atmosphere of incivility, personal attacks, multiple assumptions of bad faith and disruption. This is no disrespect intended to you or your question but I'm not engaging here any more. I already explained my close and if this wasn't snowing I don't know what is. If there is an issue with the close it should not be directed to DRV. Spartaz Humbug! 15:03, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

On reading this section Spartaz, I'm skipping the recommended 'discussion' phase and going straight to DRV, hence the notice below. Enjoy! MickMacNee (talk) 17:11, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for User:Stevertigo/Obama and accusations of National Socialism
An editor has asked for a deletion review of User:Stevertigo/Obama and accusations of National Socialism. 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. MickMacNee (talk) 17:11, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Requests for arbitration and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
 * Requests for arbitration;
 * Arbitration guide.

Thanks, Hope this clears things up. Happy editing. -Stevertigo 17:24, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Closing

 * Hi Spartaz. I just wanted to express my disappointment at the way you handled this. I don't think I degenerated into anything. I was describing what I see as a legitimate problem regarding Jaakobou's reverting without discussion pattern. Two other admins thought the way the IP's edits were being treated was rather unfair. I brought up Jaakobou's similar behaviour at another related article by way of an example of the problem. And I didn't open that thread, he did. He's simply not aware of how his actions are wrong. How could he be, when no one does anything about it
 * I also don't understand why you changed the sub-heading to the section. I had linked to alert other editors whose names were brought up in the discussion. Jaakobou made some serious and false charges against some of the editors (basically that the IP was a sock of one of them and that they were banned, which they were not). That's not something he should be allowed to do without providing evidence. Its certainly not right of you to have closed the discussion without addressing that.
 * So I'd like to know why you closed the thread, changed the heading, treated my concerns as though they were illegitimate, and ignored Jaakobou's violations of WP:AGF and WP:REVERT? Thanks.  T i a m u t talk 20:21, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Jaacobou's original charge had clearly not gained traction so I changed the header to remove the ip addresses number as they clearly hadn't done anything to be worthy of an ANI report about them. Since the original complaint had failed and the discussion was now being ignored except for you and Jaakobou throwing accusations at each other I closed the thread as it had no further purpose. Spartaz Humbug! 05:43, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The thing is, the IP editor, whom I also alerted to the discussion, might have liked to comment there about the false accusations made by Jaakobou. So too would Eleland and PR, who Jaakobou mentions by name as supposedly banned editors that the IP was editing on behalf of. Jaakobou made a series of serious and unfounded accusations (which he has done before) and instead of getting a warning, you closed the thread citing both our behaviours as problematic. With respect, I strongly disagree with that assessment. A quick review of my comments shows I was not making accusations that were unfounded. Everything I said was supported by diffs. All I did was ask for help in clarifying to Jaakobou an other editors, that reverting without discussion is simply not cool. Instead of clarifying that, you buried the debate. I think you owe me an apology for treating my valid concerns as though they were on par with Jaakobou's conspiracy theories. I'd like you to change your closing note to reflect what you said above: that Jaakobou's original charges had no traction. Thanks.  T i a m u t talk 10:29, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * What's the point of holding something open just so someone can say something about it not being them when no one has accepted that either? I don't mind refining the closing statement. Spartaz Humbug! 14:19, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * To allow other admins to review the section and decide whether or not more serious action against Jaakobou's spurious claims should be taken, since he's already been warned about it the past (as I noted there). Nevermind though. If you think there's no need simply because no one believed him, that's a fair enough position. Thank you for refining your closing statement in response to my concerns, and happy editing.  T i a m u t talk 14:49, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Deletion discussion for Ashida Kim under review
I noticed that you had expressed concerns on User talk:Backslash Forwardslash about the closure of the most recent Ashida Kim deletion discussion. I have posted a review request for this discussion: Deletion review/Log/2009 September 4. *** Crotalus *** 20:56, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

OR RFC/U
With regards to your closing this AN/I discussion, are you opening such a RFC/U, has one already been opened, or is another user doing such? —  pd_THOR  undefined | 00:32, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Can't speak for him, but I think he's just saying that AN/I is a bad place to air general grievances about a user. Protonk (talk) 00:39, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The consensus of the discussion is that AN/I was the wrong location and that a RFC/U was the way forward. I'm not opening it. Spartaz Humbug! 05:25, 5 September 2009 (UTC)