User talk:MrScorch6200/2014 July

Discussion

July 2014 Conversations (post at the bottom please)

Disambiguation link notification for July 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Johnny Martino, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Confessions of a Thug. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:00, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jack Daley Primary School

Hi. Thank you for closing school AfD discussions. When closing as 'redirect' please remember to add the {{R from school}} template to the redirect page because it automatically populates the category. Thanks again. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:51, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gullringens GoIF

I asked for the prod to be removed from Gullringens GoIF and now it appears the article has gone gone to AfD without me or anyone else being notified and now been closed early despite only 2 people commenting (neither who agreed with the AfD proposal)? This doesn't seem right. It wasn't snowing. There was little response. Those involved in the article earlier were not notified. Procedurely, the same comment applies to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Svalövs BK - though being a lower league, that may have been the correct outcome. Nfitz (talk) 17:16, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

@Nfitz: Notification of an AfD is not required (see here) because there is always a notice posted at the top of the article, although it should have been done as a courtesy. Also, there was a clear consensus as a redirect, see my comments at the top of the AfD. I also explained why I chose to close them one day early. Technically speaking, a delete is essentially the same as a redirect, so the AfD had no opposal or anyone stating that the article should be kept, and there was no recent responses and likely wouldn't have attracted any more attention. Also, know that the deletion tier goes CSD, PROD, then AFD, with AFD basically being the last step (that's why it was AFD'd after removal of the PROD). MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 17:29, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

P.S. If you disagree with my interpretation of the consensus of the AFD, then I'd like to point you towards Deletion Review. MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 17:36, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

• Having only two people comment on an AFD proposal is unusual in itself, and normally leads to a relisting for further comment. You however have taken it on yourself to close the AFDs early, despite the lack of interest in the AFD. This is not appropriate or normal! Please undo your edits and re-open the AFD for further discussion. Nfitz (talk) 17:42, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

@Nfitz: Like I already said, if you disagree with my interpretation of the consensus of the AFD, go to Deletion Review. The AfDs are closed discussions and should not be edited further by anyone. MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 17:47, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

The AfDs can be edited further and reopened shortly after closing by the closing Admin if they realize they have made an error in closing. As appears to be the case here. Nfitz (talk) 17:49, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

I do not believe that I made an error. (I only closed it one-day early per server time; it's not like if it ran for only three days). Go to deletion review. See here: "Questions or concerns about a closure should first be asked on the talk page of the editor who closed the discussion. If that does not resolve the concerns, the closure can be appealed at Wikipedia:Deletion review. MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 17:53, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

You very much made an error given the low response to the AFD - compared to other AFDs for the project [1]. I seldom pop in more than once a week. The 7-day deletion period is 7 days for a reason. I will put this to DRV in due course, as it is difficult to submit one if one isn't going to be available to contribute for a few days afterwards. Nfitz (talk) 18:17, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Remove Article

Hi MrScorch6200,I think the article entitled Abduhamidullo Rasulov do not need to be removed but it needs to be developed and added contents, You can invite other users to develop the content of the article. Thanks

-User:MrMohammed305 (takl) July 27, 2014 4.50am UTC — Preceding undated comment added 04:49, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Right now, that will be decided at AfD. You can comment on the article's AfD page if you'd like to. MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 04:52, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for closing old discussions on the noticeboards. Chillum 05:13, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

 Thanks! MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 05:20, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

When to engage

Your posts at WP:ANI and User talk:Eric Corbett are super unhelpful. The disputed comment is not a personal attack, and adding "PA" just shows you have misunderstood the simple English used in the comment. There is no policy or guideline that prohibits the comment in question, and acting as if there were is inflammatory because now people have something to argue about—a pointless exercise. Self-reverting would be good, but failing that, please think carefully before making any further comments at ANI. Johnuniq (talk) 07:47, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm just tired and not really thinking straight right now. I'm going to remove the 'warning' and strike my comment at ANI. Thanks for the concern, MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 07:51, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, that's very helpful. Much appreciated. Johnuniq (talk) 08:10, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome! Again, sorry for my mistake. MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 08:13, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

ANI closure

Have a view at [2] and consider reading WP:CBAN, only a uninvolved administrator can close such discussions. Thanks. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 10:14, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Also consider removing the notice you have posted on the talk page of Jaguar. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 10:16, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

@OccultZone: I removed the notice from his TP and the WP:EDR page. It was a very clear-cut consensus and I'm sure an admin will reach the same decision. Regards, MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 15:20, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello. I am an admin and I approve this close[3]. If it needs an admin stamp of approval consider that it. I did not bother to reword and resign the closing as MrScorch6200 has done such a good job on it.

MrScorch6200, I was starting to think you were an admin. Chillum 15:44, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

@Chillum: Hahaha, I'm just trying my best. Thanks a lot for supporting my close. MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 15:48, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

For the sake of appearances[4]. I only redid the closure, not the notices etc. Chillum 15:46, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Chillum is correct, the closure was very nice. Keep doing the good work! OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 15:53, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 15:57, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

WP:ANI#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Max Bennett (actor)

Hi, Mr Scorch. I was a little surprised at your close of "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Max Bennett (actor)" on ANI. It doesn't seem closely connected with the actual discussion. Newyorkbrad (a checkuser and arb) said he'd take a "close look at this" in the morning. So why would people have to take their concerns to SPI and UAA? Please change your close as it's likely to mislead people into putting needless busywork into filing SPI reports etc. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. If it's your opinion that they still should do that, you might have noted it as part of the discussion. It's not proper as a close. Bishonen | talk 13:36, 27 July 2014 (UTC).

On second thoughts, I changed the close myself. Hope you don't mind. Bishonen | talk 13:42, 27 July 2014 (UTC).

@Bishonen: That's fine. I did not know he was a CU, I just thought he was a user proposing that he was taking his concerns to UAA/SPI, and I was reminding him to take that to the correct forums. I was looking at the OP's reported issue during my close, which was resolved by speedy close. Regards, MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 15:05, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

OK. That'll teach him we're none of us as famous as we think..! I don't blame you at all, but Newyorkbrad is probably (IMO) the second best-known wikipedian after Jimbo, and people are likely to refer to him without much explanation. Bishonen | talk 15:13, 27 July 2014 (UTC).

Really? I've been around a while and haven't seen him at all, and I've only interacted with Jimbo a little. Of course, there's always my little circle of regular admins I always get along with. MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 15:17, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

You have a circle of admins? You should consider joining the cabal(there is no cabal)! Chillum 16:00, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I should (but I can't)! MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 16:11, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
(Yes, it needs to be that big. Also, any editor who provides this list as proof of the [fabled] cabals, please note that upon viewing, your PC will explode shortly. If you have a MAC, it's going to implode.)

Just a thought...

...you might want to slow down on your noticeboard closures. As a non-admin, I'm fully aware of the feeling that an annoying discussion needs to be closed, but

• (A) Not all threads need a formal closure: a close is useful to terminate a discussion which has outlived its usefulness, but a simple request which is briefly discussed and then dealt with doesn't really need to be closed;
• (2) A NAC closure should be the exception, and not the rule; as with the case above, any close which involves future action which will need to be taken by an admin -- the institution of a topic ban, for instance -- should, in the vast majority of cases, be closed by an admin. Not that a non-admin cannot make the close, but if an admin does it there will be much less Wikilawyering about its validity

As an editor with about a year's experience here, I'm afraid there may still be some significant gaps in your knowledge of Wikipedia's policies, guidelines and culture, which may impact negatively on your closures. Your never having heard of the long-time arbitrator and very well-respected admin Newyorkbrad is a case in point; knowing the major players is certainly not a requirement for closing a noticeboard thread, but not knowing them can be a sign that your handle on things is still evolving.

Thanks for your consideration, BMK (talk) 07:23, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Stifle boxes contd..

There are of course plenty of even potentially interminable discussions in the archives, but the practice of wrapping every resolved issue up in a stifle box is relatively recent. I find it unhelpful on the admin noticeboard. The page has a wide audience, and relevant insightful comments can come from all sorts of angles even after a discussion appears finished. If there is nothing to say the thread will just get read and then archived by the bot. If people are just dribbling on then by all means box it if that's the right solution. If a resolution or decision was explicitly sought, use the box for that. But if there is something to add, I would prefer we weren't telling people not to add it, even if it appears there's nothing to add. Regards. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 07:35, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions based on your expertise. I will take them into consideration when helping at ANI. Thanks again, MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 07:53, 28 July 2014 (UTC)