User talk:Spartaz/Archive22

Four years ago ...
sufficient robustness
	... you were recipient; no. 326 of Precious,; a prize of QAI!

Fake information — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.33.106.40 (talk) 11:41, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request to move deleted page Adewale Demehin to my space for improvement.[edit]

You deleted the page, Adewale Demehin without giving any rationale for doing so, and closed the discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adewale Demehin

Anyhow, I want to request that the page should be copied to my private space where I'd be able to work and improve on it. Thank you...

The article in question has been created by strong COI editors on numerous occasions. i suggest it is salted as the actor has no chance of being notable in the nearest future.HandsomeBoy (talk) 22:59, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lol... No offense, Handsomeboy, but are you some sort of fortune teller, or something to know the article will never be notable?

Even if it takes 10 years to become notable, having it on my page during that period will not be against any of Wikipedia's policies, would it?

I'm not talking about republishing the article now, but in the "future," when it becomes notable.

So, just chill, eh...

Davioseki (talk) 11:36, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Extended confirmed protection[edit]

Hello, Spartaz. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.

In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:

Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.

Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:49, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

A beer for you![edit]

We may have differing opinions, but I appreciate the remark on quality. Cheers! StonefieldBreeze (talk) 12:46, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Fuck her right in the pussy[edit]

User:1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR has asked for a deletion review of Fuck her right in the pussy. 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. —Cryptic 02:28, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fuck her right in the pussy listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Fuck her right in the pussy. Since you had some involvement with the Fuck her right in the pussy redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:02, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins[edit]

Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:32, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A new user right for New Page Patrollers[edit]

Hi Spartaz.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Challenge Series[edit]

The Challenge Series is a current drive on English Wikipedia to encourage article improvements and creations globally through a series of 50,000/10,000/1000 Challenges for different regions, countries and topics. All Wikipedia editors in good standing are invited to participate.

Use {{subst:The Challenge series invitation}} to invite others using this template.
Sent to users at Northamerica1000/Mailing list using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:16, 19 November 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Precious anniversary[edit]

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:57, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Five years now! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:00, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

-) Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:18, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Mobility Agenda[edit]

Greetings: Almost ten years ago to the day, you informed me that my entry for New Mobility Agenda was . .

“27 Comment from user page: your proposed New Mobility Agenda rewrite ('too gushing'). I have a feel for what you are saying here and will be pleased to lend a hand if you think that might be useful to provide a more neutral version. Within the limits of our available time of course. ericbritton 11:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC)”

It seemed that I was not able to convince you or the other editors at the time of the legitimacy of this increasingly widely used phrase in transport, city planning and environment circles, so New Mobility Agenda was scratched from Wikipedia. At the time, I did not make the necessary effort to document its legitimacy in the world-wide discussions of climate modification, environmental degradation, poor decisions when it came to sustainable transport in cities, etc., and the need for, precisely, "new mobility" approaches.

I also understand that even though this phrase evolved out of my own international work in the mid-eighties – like “Car Free Days” – it is important that its broad acceptance be justified. I will be pleased to take a stab at that now.

Ten years have now passed and if you Google "New Mobility Agenda" today, you will see it calls up more than ten thousand references. Of the ones that are documented roughly half of which are entirely independent of my work or involvement in any form. (By that I mean that the phrase New Mobility Agenda is increasingly broadly used not only in places associated with my own work and recommendations to governments, centers of research and policy, and civil society for sustainable transport, sustainable cites and sustainable lives.

So now please, how can I get the Wikipedia entry on New Mobility Agenda back on line. It’s a small thing but there are no big solutions to our problems of unsustainability and climate modification. Just a huge number of many mainly small things. That is what we and thousands of others around the world working on these challenges call the New Mobility Agenda.

Thanks for advising me so that we can get this telling phrase back where it belongs. In Wikipedia.

ericbritton 16:43, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

None of the sources you provide meet WP:GNG. I'd suggest you look over draft articles and try to find some decent sources. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:39, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Season's Greetings[edit]

Hello Spartaz: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:30, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

Merry, merry![edit]

From the icy Canajian north; to you and yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:02, 26 December 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Sandard offer[edit]

@Spartaz: Just to clarify, does this decision mean an indefinite ban? The discussion concerned bans of various length, but your post did not specify if this was the case.--Satt 2 (talk) 08:01, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Check your talk page. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:03, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the clarification. Would you kindly note the timeframe in the archived discussion as well? I just don't want there to be any confusion since different people were asking for different things.--Satt 2 (talk) 08:05, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Its clearly shown at WP:RESTRICT but I'll add it. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:11, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

January 2017[edit]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Flag carrier, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. Jetstreamer ^Talk 13:14, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey[edit]

Hello! The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey. We want to know how well we are supporting your work on and off wiki, and how we can change or improve things in the future.^[1] The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation. You have been randomly selected to take this survey as we would like to hear from your Wikimedia community. To say thank you for your time, we are giving away 20 Wikimedia T-shirts to randomly selected people who take the survey.^[2] The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes.

Take the survey now!

You can find more information about this project. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement. Please visit our frequently asked questions page to find more information about this survey. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email to surveys@wikimedia.org.

Thank you! --EGalvez (WMF) (talk) 19:25, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ This survey is primarily meant to get feedback on the Wikimedia Foundation's current work, not long-term strategy.
^ Legal stuff: No purchase necessary. Must be the age of majority to participate. Sponsored by the Wikimedia Foundation located at 149 New Montgomery, San Francisco, CA, USA, 94105. Ends January 31, 2017. Void where prohibited. Click here for contest rules.

Administrators' newsletter - February 2017[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.

Administrator changes

NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67

Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13

Guideline and policy news

A discussion to workshop proposals to amend the administrator inactivity policy at Wikipedia talk:Administrators has been in process since late December 2016.
Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2016 closed with no consensus for implementing Pending changes level 2 with new criteria for use.
Following an RfC, an activity requirement is now in place for bots and bot operators.

Technical news

When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.

Arbitration

The Arbitration Committee released a response to the Wikimedia Foundation's statement on paid editing and outing.

Obituaries

JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.

Discuss this newsletter • Subscribe • Archive

13:37, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Deletion requests on Commons[edit]

Daer Spartaz, I have noted that in the last few days you quite frequently have started deletion requests on Commons, where in most cases it would have been easy for you to simple choose a different and maybe more correct license. As you are obviouly interesetd in improving wikipedia, may I suggest that in future you put in that little extra effort yourself instead of just screamong "delete" ? --Zenwort 15:30, 4 February 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zenwort (talk • contribs)

I don't think so. What license do you think we should use for a derivative image where the original rights remain with the government that issued the document. I haven't nominated any of the incorrectly licensed images where there is a reasonable expectation that the images themselves are PD but not every government releases their documents as PD or under a CC license. The people uploading should be responsible for putting this right. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:51, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Satt 2[edit]

Hello,
Satt 2 was unblocked on the strict condition that he was topic banned from anything related to Georgia and would not make any controversial edits for a lengthy period. Yet, ever since, he's playing the game what we could evidently describe as sneakily in order to avoid scrutiny, by still editing matters directly related to Georgia, but not as directly as let's say, editing a "History of Georgia (country) article". Violating examples; [1]-[2] (<---changed Europe map to add Georgia to it, which is completely in line with typical Satt 2 behavior for the last 6 yrs)-[3] Also, I'd say this one is an outright violation of the terms of unblock, in the strictest sense of the words. As you can see, he completely overhauled this page to once again add Georgia almost completely geographically in Europe, a status quo completely different from what is actually presented on the main map on the Europe page, see here. (he just uploaded a new map with Georgia in Europe today, and added that on these linked pages).

This users editorial obsession with this whole "Georgia-Europe" thing was one of the foremost reasons why he got blocked and continued to get blocked when he created new sockpuppets in the past six years. Feel free to check his SPI where an abundant amount of similar examples are visible. This should be really considered unacceptable, considering the users repertoire and the way he got unblocked. In my opinion, this only shows once again that the user in question should not be editing Wikipedia. He's basically ridiculing the guys who supported an unconditional block, just saying. - LouisAragon (talk) 12:23, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Future Perfect at Sunrise, KrakatoaKatie, Ivanvector, and Drmies. - LouisAragon (talk) 12:23, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think this would be better off posted at WP:AN. I won't do anything unilaterally here but I support re-blocking indefinitely with the standard offer, as these edits are clearly gaming the topic ban which was a condition of having been unblocked in the first place (and recently). Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:06, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done Moved it, including your comment. If you could just renew the signature's date whenever you have the time, that'd be great. Here's the link. - LouisAragon (talk) 21:46, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request for undeletion of Gailen David[edit]

I should first say, I have a COI as a paid editor hired by The Jet Set. Also, my plan is not to simply write an article and publish it. I plan to develop a draft in draft space and submit for review through AfC. My reasoning for notability is that this BLP is notable for three events:

Firing/Lawsuits and relationship with American Airlines: Huffington Post, NBC 6 News, New Times BPB, eTN News
Host of Telly Award winning segment TAKE OFF!: ABC 12
Host of The Jet Set: B&C News, Staten Island Advance

I am not convinced by #2. IMO, the article on Take OFF! should be nominated for deletion as it was reviewed by BiH who is blocked for spam. Anyway, Gailen David still qualifies under WP:BLP2E.

Just thought, I'd ask first before initiating a deletion review.—አቤል ዳዊት^?(Janweh64) (talk) 21:46, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus of the discussion was that the article was unrepairable so I see no point restoring this. If you have been paid to write an reticle you should work only from the sources not from a puff piece. If you decide to write a draft I would expect to see you running it past DRV before it goes into main space, Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:32, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do I understand you would prefer DRV over AFC? Off course, no problem.—አቤል ዳዊት^?(Janweh64) (talk) 08:58, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes a coi editor seeks to recreate an article deleted for coi puffery after an afd. Of course it needs to go via DRV. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:16, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Gailen David[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Gailen David. 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. —አቤል ዳዊት^?(Janweh64) (talk) 11:26, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia survey[edit]

Hello! This is a final reminder that the Wikimedia Foundation survey will close on 28 February, 2017 (23:59 UTC). The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes. Take the survey now.

If you already took the survey - thank you! We won't bother you again.

About this survey: You can find more information about this project here or you can read the frequently asked questions. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email through EmailUser function to User:EGalvez (WMF) or surveys@wikimedia.org. About the Wikimedia Foundation: The Wikimedia Foundation supports you by working on the software and technology to keep the sites fast, secure, and accessible, as well as supports Wikimedia programs and initiatives to expand access and support free knowledge globally. Thank you! --EGalvez (WMF) (talk) 08:25, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confederate States Air Force listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Confederate States Air Force. Since you had some involvement with the Confederate States Air Force redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:58, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Zamalek SC (volleyball)[edit]

Hi Spartz. I came across Zamalek SC (volleyball) while checking on the non-free use of a file. I noticed that the article was deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zamalek SC (volleyball) in April 2015, so I'm not sure if the current version qualifies for deletion again per WP:G4. For reference, the current article was recreated about a month after the AfD. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:19, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

it was a soft delete so not enforceable. Looks like its being maintained by a coi editor but otherwise looks harmless. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:26, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look and for clarifying things. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:51, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Name change discussion at Talk:Liancourt Rocks[edit]

Please come participate in the name change discussion regarding the future naming of the Liancourt Rocks article. Thank you for participating! ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:04, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since you are watching Liancourt Rocks[edit]

This crap needs to stop. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:08, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Appeal regarding ban from Longevity related articles[edit]

As it has now been more than one year and the climate regarding AfDs for this sort of articles has cooled of considerably since this ban was enforced. I also believe myself to have matured this past year to a degree sufficient enough to have this ban alleviated. 930310 (talk) 13:38, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have made only 11 edits since the topic ban was imposed and 1 of those was a tb vio. While I'm sympathetic to the fact that you may have matured I would like to see some evidence of this from your establishing a pattern of policy compliant edits in other areas before considering lifting the ban. You are welcome to appeal the ban at AE but I cannot see the outcome differing. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:24, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

regarding AfD of Nikki Phoenix[edit]

hi , it is regarding current discussion here . Irrespective of the outcome, I found your remarks aggravated while trying to address the new author. I hope you see reason, as this might deter him/her to edit in future at all here. Thought of writing to you in good faith since you seem to be a seasoned Wikipedian. regards. Devopam (talk) 10:16, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

agf is not a suicide pact and the other user had already attacked the motivations of the nominator in their very first post. I ratcheted up my tone as a response to that. New users that want to be treated gently need to start themselves with less rudeness and avoid ad homs in their first post. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:06, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You may recall this editor[edit]

Who accepted a mentorship and vanished after 6 days.[4] I've posted to their talk page and John Vandenbergs'. Doug Weller talk 19:16, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tomas Gorny to draft?[edit]

Good morning Spartaz. I'd have seen it go the other way, but I appreciate the work you put into closing. As there's no statement on salting the page, can you move the old one to draft for a shot at a nonpromotional rewrite? Thanks Hyperbolick (talk) 11:37, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, it would be better to start from scratch. Do you have a COI? If you do, you should leave it to someone uninvolved. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:12, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No COI, I just think a better article is writable. Seems wasteful to "start from scratch" when some sources were agreed as reliable sources. No doubt a few lines could be salvaged. Hyperbolick (talk) 13:34, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

take the decent sources by all means, they will be the google cache, but the issue is the accusation of coi puffery - you will have a better chance of getting a new article accepted if it starts from scratch Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:15, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, got it. 👍 Hyperbolick (talk) 15:06, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unsalting[edit]

On behalf of Paul Henry Kyara, Kyara Stijns, an Indian village, a character in the video game Ururun Quest: Koiyuuki and a Japanese grade of agarwood, I request you unsalt Kyara for a dab page. Clarityfiend (talk) 16:00, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

done. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:19, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:28, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Novara Media[edit]

Patrickbettington has asked for a deletion review of Novara Media. 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. —Cryptic 14:33, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FILMPLOT[edit]

“

As Wikipedia's policy on primary sources says, "... a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge ... Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about information found in a primary source." Since the film is the primary source and the infobox provides details about the film, citing the film explicitly in the plot summary's section is not necessary. Exceptions to the rule include upcoming films and "lost" films (which are not available to the public to verify), for which editors should use secondary sources.

”

This. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 20:02, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

completely unsourced OR. Younwant a plot? Source it, Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:35, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Spartaz, I've only informed your of your error so in the future you do not make the same mistake. It appears you are unaware that we do not require sources for film plot, despite every FA film article not having sourced plot summaries. The only reason I haven't rolledback your edit is out of respect for HorrorMaster's request which does not violate policy. However, if you still do disagree go ahead and remove an unsourced plot from another film article. Since you are now aware of policy, it is considered vandalism [going forward] and an ANI would follow. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 00:06, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not vandalism, but it is a wrongheaded edit. It is outright false to call it original research. Basic descriptions can be used from primary sources, which is self-evident unless indicated otherwise (such as being a lost film unwatchable and unverifiable by anyone). I've added inline citations, but totally unnecessary in the big picture. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 02:56, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clarified the to say vandalism going forward, after citing policy this administrator chose not only to ignore my advice, but writes "wrong" in his edit summary. If he is suggesting he will start removing unsourced plot summaries, I am letting him know the line is drawn, he can choose to cross it if he is curious of the consequences. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 03:27, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Shankar[edit]

Hello Spartaz, can you please check who created Steven Shankar (an article you deleted per G5) because I just found another article on the same subject under diffrent title Sai Rajesh which appears to be a copy of the deleted version. Thank you – GSS (talk|c|em) 11:01, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cyrille Bara AfD[edit]

Hey, thanks for cleaning up my stupidity, but can you at least notify me if there's a next time? Thanks, ansh 666 05:37, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I pinged you in the afd. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:21, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It didn't work - not sure why. Possibly because you didn't start your comment on a new line? I've found that system really unreliable. Thanks for trying though. ansh 666 20:07, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, from Wikipedia:Notifications - "if the mention is not on a completely new line with a new signature, no notification will be sent". Gets people all the time. Of course, it's even more fun now, because you don't know if the recipient has you "muted". Bless the WMF... -- Begoon 16:17, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mute is a thing? Oh jeez, that's great. Anyways, Spartaz: thank you for your comment at my RfA. I'm sure this won't become a pattern. Cheers, ansh 666 23:56, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

S. Perera (Kurunegala Youth Cricket Club cricketer)[edit]

Hi there. You decided via consensus that this article should be deleted as per the relevant AfD discussion. Would you mind if I sent this article to Wikipedia:Deletion review? I don't wish to do so without your say-so. As I'm sure you're aware, with the article being a first-class cricketer and therefore technically valid for an article, for any user to decide to delete it would cause havoc regarding the WP:CRIC guidelines that every single first-class cricketer is equally notable. As you yourself admitted, defining consensus was a tricky issue and I admire you very much for the decision you felt you had to make, given that many personal opinions were provided as well as the individual keep and delete !votes.

We are discussing elsewhere the frustration with which some users - including, in some places, myself - have expressed themselves within certain AfD discussions. Thankfully none of this frustration manifested itself on S. Perera's deletion discussion, which I'm sure you'll agree was, in the main, very civil.

While I admire the decision you had to make, may I suggest it seems peculiar that one day, there will be a Wikipedia article for every first-class cricketer except this one. I'm sure you can see my point of view that I too realize that the decision was a hard one to make. Bobo . 03:32, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

what you are doing is putting an sng above gng/n. That is the wrong way round. I can't stop you going to DRV but it's a mistake. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:49, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see this as an SNG/GNG issue. One day every single first-class cricketer will have an article, except for this guy. Bobo . 08:20, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

not unless they all have sourcing. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:33, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hazel Tucker (2nd nomination)[edit]

In 2015, you supported the deletion if the article on Helen Tucker. The vote ended with no consensus. Would you consider voting on my new nomination? -- Zanimum (talk) 01:36, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello :)[edit]

WOW! Thank you, thank you, thank you for saving me! I'm not even sure what to say. You are amazing :) €#R!$$¥ 10:03, 11 October 2017 (UTC) 10:01, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

please review[edit]

please review my article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Vishalgauravjh1/Devsena_Mishra Regards

It needs sources about her rather than by her. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:16, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Appeal deletion of Arianne Bellamar[edit]

Deletion review for Arianne Bellamar[edit]

An editor has asked for a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review#Arianne Bellamar|deletion review]] of Arianne Bellamar. 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. Kire1975 (talk) 23:11, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sabrina Ho[edit]

I see you closed the deletion review. Could you take a look at the accounts MacauMan888 and WikiWhat888 who look to be socks of each other if not the other accounts? Would you also be willing to move protect the article currently at Draft:Sabrina Ho, and perhaps salt the one title Sabrina Ho until the issues are resolved? If you require more context look at the history and logs of User:MacauWizard1/Sabrina Ho and Sabrina Ho Chiu Yeng. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:08, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Emir of Wikipedia:@CapitalSasha:I am not a sock. The article was originally deleted due to G11, then for copyright violation. At this time the draft language has been significantly improved and it clearly no longer falls under G11. CapitalSasha was also in agreement the original speedy deletion didn't even quality for G11, and there was no clear consensus. I therefore published the draft to an article since the wording has been appropriately adjusted by several good editors. You deleted my article for no reason whatsoever with no consensus. Isn't that vandalism? MacauMan888 (talk) 11:34, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@MacauMan888: Please read WP:VANDALISM before you accuse people of it. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:42, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The issue has now been resolved. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:30, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Political scandals of the United States[edit]

I would like to know if you would be willing to restore (or allow restoration) of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Political scandals of the United States. It is fairly unusual for AfDs to be deleted, so I wanted to check with you to find out whether there was a significant problem with the AfD as to cause it to be deleted. The underlying article has since been moved to List of federal political scandals in the United States and is now up for deletion itself, so it would be helpful if editors could see the prior AfD, which was overturned by a deletion review which itself is visible. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:36, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why I deleted this. The dates of the discussion and the deletrion don't match and the summary suggests it was a script deletion not manual. Maybe it was a script error. I have restored the page. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:09, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:40, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Happy turkey day[edit]

Rika Tachibana[edit]

Hi there, I noticed you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rika Tachibana as delete. However, looking at the discussion, it seems many of the delete !votes didn't take into consideration the coverage I raised in the discussion, as well as AngusWOOF's comment that her CD charted at #11 on the Japanese music charts. Would the outcome stay the same regardless, or should the discussion be reopened for another week, or the outcome be changed to no consensus? Also, while I really don't like citing numerical votes in AfD and I try to avoid it if I can, but there were four delete votes to five keep votes, so even if there was a consensus to delete the article, it doesn't seem like a very strong one. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:09, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

keep votes based on non-policy reasons count less than votes with a policy based rationale. Since interviews are primary sources they are not independant enough to count for notability and arguments to keep on that gasis got less weight. I also give less weight to assertions as that is a classic argument to avoid. I didn’t see a basis to relist and given the weighting of the votes I disagree with your interpretation of the strength of consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:34, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

request[edit]

Spartaz, Can you send me a copy or a link to Western gui9lt (concept)? I may find some of the sources useful if I can make time to write a new article as suggested. Thanks.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:51, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reedsy[edit]

I thought this AfD was too closely argued to be closed so quickly (8 days), and without explanation or rationale. -- GreenC 22:09, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This was a well attended discussion even after the provision of sources by Cunard. 7 days is enough in this case. I have added a rationale. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:10, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm agreeing with GreenC that the AfD was close, and I felt it was closed too quickly, and without a proper explanation. I would have liked to have had your take on why you thought the sources, which include The Guardian, Publishers Weekly, Forbes, TechCrunch were bogus. These are respected publications with a track record of reliable reporting and journalistic integrity.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 09:00, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not assessing the sources in any way. Had I done that then my close would havce been a supervote. I based the outcome on the opinions expressed in the discussion. The people you need to ask are those who discounted Cunard's sources. Admins shouldn't substitute their own view for the opinions expressed in the discussion and I have no dog in this fight. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:15, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well I guess I'd have to say Humbug, Spartaz. You, an admin, turning a blind eye to sources, well how can you evaluate the quality of the arguments? The whole discussion was about sources which you've chosen to ignore. And yes you did substitute your own views in the discussion -- you chose to Delete an article with reliable sources.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:07, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - To be clear, I evaluated the arguments put forward. Anything else would have been a super ore. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:42, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        Look, if you want to be an admin and make AfD decisions, do the work. Don't just close an AfD with a Delete without an explanation, particularly when it was close and when there wasn't a clear consensus. When a contributor questioned your decision, then you belatedly added a rationale. Since the debate was mostly about the reliability of the sources, when I asked you what was your opinion about the sources, you replied that you didn't assess the sources. Can you see why we're scratching our heads here?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:55, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do have to say, even though I'm used to my articles getting deleted, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Nehlen (2nd nomination) was a bit too close. I would've preferred to let discussion continue for more time.Ethanbas ^(talk) 04:32, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ANI Experiences survey[edit]

Beginning on November 28, 2017, the Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative (Safety and Support and Anti-Harassment Tools team) will be conducting a survey to en.wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with the Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works - which problems it deals with well, and which problems it struggles with.

The survey should take 10-20 minutes to answer, and your individual responses will not be made public. The survey is delivered through Google Forms. The privacy policy for the survey describes how and when Wikimedia collects, uses, and shares the information we receive from survey participants and can be found here:

https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/2017_AN/Incidents_Survey_Privacy_Statement

If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be mailed to you via Special:Emailuser.

Sign up here to receive a link to a survey

Thank you on behalf of the Support & Safety and Anti-Harassment Tools Teams, Patrick Earley (WMF) talk 21:12, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A page you started (Joel Reyes Zobel) has been reviewed![edit]

Thanks for creating Joel Reyes Zobel, Spartaz!

Wikipedia editor Velella just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

revert to redirect

To reply, leave a comment on Velella's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Velella ^{Velella Talk} 10:02, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mister wiki case has been accepted[edit]

You were recently listed as a party to or recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct of Mister Wiki editors. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct of Mister Wiki editors/Evidence. Please add your evidence by December 15, 2017, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct of Mister Wiki editors/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Kostas20142 (talk) 21:34, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Hello, Spartaz. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Rika Tachibana[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Rika Tachibana. 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. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 03:46, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Berlin Döner Kebap[edit]

Not sure how this is delete. Looks like no consensus to me. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:46, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gorditas Doña Tota[edit]

And another. Looks like a keep. These are definitely candidates for DRV, I think. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:13, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

both articles only look like nc if you give nonpolicy based keep assertions the same weight as policy based delete arguments that reflect a lack of provable sources. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:16, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Billboard Mainstream Top 40 chart achievements[edit]

Why did you close this deletion discussion as keep? The only keep vote was from a sock of the nominator (???) and was essentially WP:ILIKEIT. If anything, this discussion should have been relisted to allow some actual discussion to take place. Iffy★Chat -- 10:38, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was surprised by this, too. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 17:09, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The discussion was hopelessly tainted. Give it a couple of weeks until whoever it is gets bored and then renominate. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:35, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm going to take it to deletion review as I disagree with your reasoning and that there was 1 non-sock editor who voted delete, there's no need to ask them to renominate when a proper discussion could take place sooner this way. Iffy★Chat -- 20:11, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for List of Billboard Mainstream Top 40 chart achievements[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of List of Billboard Mainstream Top 40 chart achievements. 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. Iffy★Chat -- 20:17, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/VandeStreek[edit]

Hi Spartaz,

Assuming good faith, I believe that it is a coincidence that you're the admin that closed the AfD on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/VandeStreek. You are however involved in my ArbCom case. Concerning the actual AfD, I don't understand why you didn't just ran its course. I've pinged three admins, @Sergecross73 was so kind to comment, while two other admins I'm familiar did not comment, or maybe did not get the chance to do so. It was AfD'ed by an editor I consider to be partial against me for my mess up with paid editing (see the discussion for my reasons), while the other delete !vote was by an editor also involved with my paid editing case, saying "I decided to compare production volume with a microbrewery that I've visited and know (deep in my smallest bones) that is just too small for a Wikipedia article". Instead of pointing to an actual guideline, that's original research. Imagine saying "this book is not notable, it only has a hundred pages" or "this video game is not notable, it only got a 6 by GameSpot". The nominator cited several guidelines, either incorrectly or did not understand them fully, including WP:GEOSCOPE, which is about events. While WP:AUD would make sense, I've used a national newspaper and a national newspaper's website as sources, so saying it somehow fails AUD also doesn't make sense. Could you please re-open the AfD and allow others to comment as well? I know I messed up with my paid editing errors, but I don't think my work on other articles should suffer from it. If it would come to delete, that's fine, but not without impartial input by uninvolved editors. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 10:18, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Berlin Döner Kebap[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Berlin Döner Kebap. 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. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:13, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Gorditas Doña Tota[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Gorditas Doña Tota. 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. Necrothesp (talk) 11:13, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request[edit]

Hi,

Please I am requesting you to reopen this AfD. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Doe. Thanks. –Ammarpad (talk) 09:19, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Done. I didn’t see the relist crossing with my closeSpartaz ^Humbug! 15:24, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Holidays[edit]

	Happy Holidays
	Wishing you a happy holiday season! Times flies and 2018 is around the corner. Thank you for your contributions. ~ K.e.coffman (talk) 00:32, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seasons' Greetings[edit]

...to you and yours, from the Great White North! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 03:04, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mauro Malavasi[edit]

Could you explain your close please? I don't see a consensus to delete. The arguments for deletion, while in the slimmest of majorities, are really just 'not notable' statements and do not address the fact that at least one criterion of WP:NMUSIC is met. Thanks. --Michig (talk) 10:15, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This here is a source. Also Billboard - Aug 29, 1981 Vol. 93, No. 34 that was quoted in the discussion is a source. THE HISTORY OF ITALO DISCO - Pages 52 and 53 here by Francesco Cataldo Verrina - 2015 is a source with substantial coverage. Malavasi won the Pico Mirandola award in 2008.

It's a bit weird to me that you went with the "not notable at all" deletion argument when the Keep statements said what his accomplishments were, identified the sources and where to find them, and even quoted from one of them clearly showing that the subject is noted as an important figure by reliable independent sources. I reject your argument that those taking the time to investigate and support their arguments also have to fix the article for it to be kept. Anyone can do that. Especially the nom who failed to follow wp:before and other editors who make unsupported votes. FloridaArmy (talk) 14:28, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the deletion was a tad premature. However, this deletion would never have gone forward had User:FloridaArmy provided these sources in exactly the way they were presented here where they can be easily accessed (i.e a url link or publishing information) instead of vaguely referencing them with no url or author/publisher. Not all countries have access to the same content on google books so a general reference to that search engine hardly qualifies as a useable source. It's common practice to give references found in url links at AFD discussions. The WP:ONUS is on those voting "keep" to provide evidence that is verifiable (which you did not do when asked). I would remind FloridaArmy to follow Wikipedia:Assume good faith. I made the nomination after having done what I felt was enough due diligence on my part having checked through the music library at my local university. The fact that FloridaArmy found references somewhere else does not mean I did not follow WP:Before. It simply means there is value in having a community of editors who have access to different sources of information and different skill sets in writing and research.4meter4 (talk) 16:20, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I suggested a Google Books search is because when I tried to duplicate the actual links the content wouldn't show up, just the sources. Not everything is available online. Michig included not only one of the sources but a quote from it. I believe that should have been sufficient. None of the delete commenters said they were unable to find that source on Google Books or the Billboard ones I mentioned. Demanding that the Keep commenters provide links tp all the sources and do all the work is unreasonable. Anyone can add to and improve the article. I still don't know why anyone couldn't have done the search themselves and added the citations and content if they so desired. The onus was on them once they were pointed in the right direction if they determined the work was necessary. A "delete not notable" argument doesn't stand up once it was answered and debunked.FloridaArmy (talk) 16:46, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FloridaArmy, I don't accept the premise that it's an undue burden to provide accurate and relative information in accessing sources that you have already found (and assuming it took you time to find them why would you waist the time of others by not providing things like url links, authors names, publication dates, publisher, page number, etc.) Not providing that information when you have it frankly comes off as both lazy and pretentious and not in the spirit of collaboration. Nobody is asking you to do the work of rewriting the prose of the article, but taking thirty seconds to copy paste some information from the "about this book" section into the comments of the AFD discussion or quickly copy paste a url allows other users to quickly find and access the sources for themselves. It's not a difficult task or an unreasonable request. Indeed, providing evidence that others can see easily is much more persuasive for supporting your own argument. The question you should ask is, "Why should other people do the work for you to support your argument?" That's like a defense attorney saying "evidence exists to prove my client innocent" but then not presenting that evidence to the jury and demanding the prosecution make the case for the defense. It's not ever going to happen the way you want it to. I suggest you gain some maturity moving forward and just do what is best for the encyclopedia. If you had acted with maturity and provided the sources when asked the result of the AFD ruling probably would have been different and we would not be waisting time right now lamenting over a deleted article.4meter4 (talk) 03:52, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You were provided with the book title and even a quote. Did you try to look ot up and add it? Did you use Google Books and look for the Billboard articles that were noted? I think ot was more than generous that you were provided all the necessary information about the sources that were there should you choose to improve the article. Asking someone else to do the work for you is just lazy. FloridaArmy (talk) 05:14, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We shall agree to disagree (you are making circular arguments that lead nowhere and from which nothing of value can be gained or learned). In the meantime, it's pretty clear the closing administrator wasn't convinced by the way you presented your argument and neither were other editors who participated in the conversation. I took the time to express to you why you most likely lost the ruling in this particular AFD. A lot of it came down to how you communicated and presented the evidence in support of your point of view. The fact that you are continuing to place blame on others doesn't change the fact that you didn't make a convincing argument that built consensus in your favor. I am merely trying to point out to you how in the future you might be more successful in other AFDs at building consensus. If you choose not to learn from this encounter that is your choice... but it isn't wise or productive for you or the encyclopedia.4meter4 (talk) 13:59, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have undone the delete. Had you provided the sources all of this time waste could have been avoided. Even if I had not deleted this would have got relisted - wasting even more time. Make it difficult if you like buts its much easier to just help people out with the sources. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:13, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As I noted above, Michig provided one of the sources and wven quoted from it. I explained where I found the sources and what they said. How is an argument that says nothing more than it's not notable stronger?

Editors who refuse to look for sources shouldn't be aided and abetted. This is supposed to be a collaborative enterprise. FloridaArmy (talk) 13:51, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

mail[edit]

you are about to get mail. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 09:12, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done! Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:17, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

thou art kind. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 09:18, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

LOL not the impression you would get from reading my talkpage Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:15, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of floating islands in fiction[edit]

Can you please explain your rationale for deleting, then redirecting, the list in question, when no discussion participant asked for it, and at least one discussed an intent to merge portions of this list? Alternatively, feel free to amend your close and restore the history. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 20:11, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You can't merge unsourced material and the consensus was clearly to delete. There was also discussion of FORK and It seems well within administrative discretion to redirect the deleted article in the direction of the suggested fork target. That's not a consensu decision so feel free to undo the redirect. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:06, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What[edit]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/TransLink_fares_(British_Columbia) I clearly argued from a policy-based argument. All of the editors who argued for its deletion were arguing from the position that the information is not useful, but to see the fare changes over time is useful from an encyclopedic position. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:04, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As you said yourself in your comment the sourcing for this was primary and that supports the argument that this failed NOT. For the subject of TransLink Fares to be encyclopaedic there needs to be some secondary sourcing to show the subject of TransLink Fares is of wider interest. How are changes of fares over time useful encyclopaedic if this is not actually the subject of wider secondary discussion anywhere? Otherwise the subject becomes OR and SYTH as well as INDISCRIMINATE. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:13, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hattie B's Hot Chicken[edit]

Greetings, You closed an AFD of Hattie B's Hot Chicken as delete. This was later overturned by you with the summation: "deletion cannot stand due to discussion being tainted by sockpuppetry. Overturning to keep.".

I !voted delete because I saw there were notability issues and an inundation of advertising sources "Rebombed" on the article.

My serious problem lies with what seems to me to actually be an unknown reasoning you had for overturning the article. I saw there were blocked users, but didn't didn't dig into it just that they were sockpuppetry issues, and the problem is:
1)- I volunteer to comment on these pages and give an honest assessment and my rationale of "keep", "delete", or others (merge, etc...), and many others do the same. Some may be misguided, misinformed, or just do not give proof to back up their !vote and a closer must decide, on the merits of the discussion concerning policies and guidelines. Sometimes my assessment is agreed upon by a majority, sometimes I am in the minority and that is just the way it goes.
2)- There becomes an issue of a discussion being "tainted" particularly in this instance by sockpuppetry, but it could be by COI involvement, vote stacking, or any number of reasons.
3)- A twist to arbitrarily overturn a long discussion, discounting the "tainted" comments, that had a clear consensus with eight for deletion and three for keeping, is paramount to a travesty. There will ALWAYS be, trolls, sockpuppets, paid editors, COI editors, other nefarious editors or those too close to a subject, or some other reasoning, for a discussion to be "tainted". The job of a closer is to flesh these out.
4)- To me, what has happened, is that all the valid rationale for deleting (but it could have just as easily been the other way around for keeping) was wasted time in looking the article over, going over the sources (yes, some of us do that), performing searches, and the time becomes just that; wasted time.

Your rationale, to me, was less than weak and at the very least you "could have" added that you had no objections to a relisting even though it is a given. The bottom line, short of not assuming good faith that you actually thought you did the right thing and seeking some venue to dig deeper, is that you should not discount valid arguments, rationale, and discussions because someone, or more than one, "tainted" the discussion. You should block the offenders, discount their supposed !vote, and continue with the assessment. That is my opinion but I would wager others might feel the same. Until I get some satisfactory reasoning or rationale, far better than "tainted by sockpuppetry", I am not going to participate in these AFD's anymore as the reasoning given just absolutely does not hold water or make sense. If your decision was based on some unknown policy, it is wrong because every day some idiot will attempt to figure out a way game the system and "taint" a discussion. The correct solution is to not let that happen or give reasoning that can be exploited by those with malintent.

I realize that you may have some reply to justify your actions, that to me would have to be pretty good or would just be "banging the pot", but I am sorely disappointed and, if you were to look, this is the first time EVER that I have done something like this so "maybe" I just might have a point. Otr500 (talk) 15:08, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Defiant Wrestling - ongoing concerns[edit]

Hi there, Spartaz. Sorry to bother you. Whilst new page patrolling I appear to have stumbled into an unholy mess related to Defiant Wrestling which I believed you closed as "stubify" on 13th December. This is just to keep you informed of an incident associated with one editor using two accounts which I have dealt with, but which might have an impact on future decisions regarding that article.

I came across three new pages tonight, Defiant Women's Championship, Defiant Hardcore Championship and Defiant Championship, none of which seemed notable, so put them all forward for WP:AFD. A while later I received a request on my Talk Page from the article creator, User:TheCorageone1, requesting me to reverse my nominations, which I politely declined. Shortly thereafter I receive a potentially deeply offensive and aggressive message from their anonymous IP address (which they subsequently admitted to), and which I've dealt with to my satisfaction, issuing the highest level warnings to both accounts for any future abuse of any editor or for breaking any other Wiki rules. Here's the full series of messages between myself and these accounts.

I'm not seeking action for the offensive attack-I've dealt with that. But as the closing admin for Defiant Wrestling, I though you should be alert to the fact that TheCorageone1 has now undertaken a suite of edits to this and related articles which appear to be an attempt to consolidate content back into the one article, possibly fearing they're about to be permanently blocked from editing for so abusing me, and before some of these articles get deleted. So whether we have one or more socks hard at work to promote these pages, I don't know. I suspect there may well be, as I see one was recently blocked, and another has recently appeared. I know nothing about the wrestling-as-entertainment scene, except to recognise WP:PROMOTION when it stares me in the face. (I suspect you have little interest, either!) So, I'm also pinging @Galatz: as a more knowledgeable party in these articles, and would personally like to leave the matter in more experienced hands from hereon in, having had to deal with the actions of this one ~~pathetic~~ irksome editor for the last four hours. However, I shall be monitoring all their edits in future and will gladly see both of them at WP:ANI and permanently blocked for any further infringement of our rules. I hope this all makes some sense, and if you think I've acted either too leniently or in any inappropriate way, I'd welcome any guidance you care to offer. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 02:23, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Undelete request Tabula Scalata[edit]

Dear Spartaz,

Could you please undo the redirect solution for the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ripple pictures? It was listed for deletion when it was called "Ripple pictures" since that was not a proper term for this kind of art. Moving it to "Tabula Scalata" solved that. I did not see any arguments against this solution in the discussion page. Your chosen solution did not solve the original problem but deleted correct, sourced information and illustrations. The article chapter it now refers to makes use of terminology that was contested and lacks much of the relevant information of the deleted article. So please close it as keep or reopen the Afd and I'll contact the participants to see if a consensus can be reached. Thanks, ~~Joortje1~~

Deletion review for VandeStreek[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of VandeStreek. 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. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 22:01, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

January 2018[edit]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to an article on Brookside on 2000 in British television, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. 82.19.95.171 ^Talk 10:23, 01 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Romance-speaking Europe[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Romance-speaking Europe. 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. Yejianfei (talk) 18:23, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Block warning and the Defiant issue[edit]

Hello Spartaz, I saw the message on my talk page and do you know you're right, I need to slow down but also I didn't want to violate the decision, instead, I wanted to pass it to a stub to a much better article but also I've been trying to talk with them and instead they did nothing, well, some of them, but others user have actually done something and all, but please a block is needed nor a sanction neither.

All I wanted is to give my best and complete the article, but do you know what if you want me to stop editing Defiant Wrestling I do stop and instead, I'll start to edit another article.

But also Nick Moyes for such accusations of "their IP account for extreme abuse towards me.", and this "sufficient further violation to take the editor to ANI and SPI to get them permanently blocked, and hopefully a block on account creation, too.", if I do know, it's true that, that IP in the AfD was mine, and that second propose only account but making other accounts?

Sorry, but that was the accounts that I've done and were the SPA account's in the Defiant AfD, nothing more, I don't know what is this but I didn't offended or done something to anybody, someone must be using my IP because I didn't told this "Yes and you deserve it for talking crap. Don't worry. It's off my chest now and I'm gone. Admins are all ruleswankers with no common sense. Goodbye.", I edit in a library so, someone must have been or is using my account a and are attacking other users but sorry I, as a person, I didn't made those comments at the time that person made those comments, I was sleeping, well my time is GMT 0, so this must be another person.

Hopefully, you can find that person who is using my account and something to that guyTheCorageone1 (talk) 17:01, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Arianne Bellamar[edit]

Dear Spartaz, I ask for a Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hari Nur Yulianto (2nd nomination) of Hari Nur Yulianto. how to get this article to re-active? because most of player who not more famous as him in this club has been reviewed and its okay but he was deleted, thanks you so much for your attention Luthfi Waskitojati (talk) 07:43, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Tabula Scalata[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Tabula Scalata. 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. Joortje1 (talk) 20:05, 8 January 2018 (UTC)Joortje1[reply]

I’ll relisr this when i’m near a desktop. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:19, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A belated Happy New Year![edit]

Spartaz,
Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia, and a Happy New Year to you and yours! North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:14, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

– Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year}} to user talk pages.

Jon Paul Steuer[edit]

Hi. If you check the edit history (here) of the Steuer article, you'll see that you put the wrong AFD (that of Sam Horrigan) in the Steuer edit history. Yours, Quis separabit? 21:13, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

unestablished editors get little weight.[edit]

I believe you went out of process at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kenny Biddle when you declared that "unestablished editors get little weight". I will be bringing it to Deletion Review. --RAN (talk) 18:02, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Kenny Biddle[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Kenny Biddle. 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. RAN (talk) 22:59, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Powerhouse Films deletion[edit]

Hello, I am contacting you about your deletion of Powerhouse Films, which I feel was unwarranted - the initial deletion request was both uninformed and malicious in intent and there was not enough time for discussion of the deletion (which clearly had a growing number of people supporting "keep" over "delete"; also, the majority of those supporting "delete" seemed to be utterly unfamiliar with both the company and the market!). I hope that you will reconsider your decision before I am forced to submit to deletion review. Powerhouse Films is an established video distribution label, has won awards, and has a growing fanbase of blu-ray collectors from around the world - it makes no sense for this article to be deleted while similar articles for other boutique video distribution labels are allowed to remain. Cagwinn (talk) 18:15, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

what is your connection to this company? Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:09, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have no connection to the company - I am merely a movie fan and blu-ray collector. Cagwinn (talk) 22:03, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you can identify articles that do not meet our inclusion criteria then you are welcome to nominate them for deletion. To be included here articles need to meet the Inclusion standard that requires multiple (2 or more), indepth (detailed not a mention), Independent (unconnected to the subject), reliable sources (from a publication or source with a record of accuracy and or fact checking0. If these sources exist please let me see the best two or three and I will review the decision. Thanks. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:38, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Such sources were indeed present in the article, which is why I am mystified by the decision to delete it. Cagwinn (talk) 21:41, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly the other users felt these sources didn’t meet the gng. Read the guideline and also the one on sources and then review the sources critically. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:39, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Several of the other users were acting maliciously. I did review the sources - they seem fine to me. Once again, many similarly-formatted articles for other video distribution labels exist here - are you going to delete them all, too?? Cagwinn (talk) 18:18, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Papa Joe Aviance should have been closed yesterday[edit]

Hi Spartaz, as the person who relisted the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Papa Joe Aviance, in fairness to the creator that should have been closed yesterday. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 16:08, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Spartaz. I noticed that you have relisted this again - which should have been closed yesterday. This is the third time it is being relisted in a row which I appreciate is very disheartening to its editor. This is clearly a keep or a non-consensus. I draw your attention to the fact that relisting three times in a row is a contravention of Wiki policy. In other words, "relisting should not be a substitute for a "no consensus" closure. If the closer feels there has been substantive debate, disparate opinions supported by policy have been expressed, and consensus has not been achieved, a no-consensus close may be preferable. Relisting debates repeatedly in the hope of getting sufficient participation is not recommended, and while having a deletion notice on a page is not harmful, its presence over several weeks can become disheartening for its editors. Therefore, in general, debates should not be relisted more than twice. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 22:05, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why don’t you assume good faith and work on the basis that I know what I’m doing. I certainly don’t need lecturing about a routine action. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:18, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a lecture and I'm sure you know what you are doing. I am merely stating that this should not be relisted 3 times in a row as per policy, and "relisting should not be a substitute for a "no consensus" closure." Senegambianamestudy (talk) 00:37, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Spataz, can you please tell me what happened here? From my understanding the discussion should have been closed two days ago but was left going. Also, I thought we can only relist a maximum of twice in a row? I mean no disrespect to anyone I'm just curious to know. Many thanks. CultureCouture (talk) 03:36, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is a really poor discussion with no real analysis of the sources, which is required to break the tie either way. Discussions get closed when they get closed and historically there have been long backlogs that never hurt anyone. An NC close now would simply see this back at AFD quite quickly so a directed relist asking for analysis of sourcing is better in the lomg term. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:55, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, not good enough. You are trying to change policy in the middle of an Afd. There has been two major failures so far: Failure to close the discussion within the 7 day period as per policy, and relisting the article 3 times in a row which is a severe contravention of policy and cast doubt about everything. Call me stubborn but I do not believe for one minute this is a coincidence, not to mention my engagement with the nominator in several other articles and having to fix their problems and lack of adhering to policy. You know full well this is not about sources as most of the sources are reliable independent sources. This Afd was brought under the premise of notability. CC demolished their argument with the difs s/he provided - establishing notability from reliable independent sources and my argument in Afd. The nominator provided nothing in refute other than the same old one liner (because I say so), and if you don't believe me take a look at their log and their contribution in Afd discussions. The other editor who voted for delete added nothing to the argument rather than opinion without regard to policy. I saw nothing in those delete arguments other than I don't like it. Billboard [5], The Mail[6], Rolling Out [7], WEHOville [8], etc., are all independent reliable sources. With respect, you are trying to change policy in the middle of an Afd. This is clearly a keep based on policy and at worst no consensus. If you felt that you were unable to close it you should have left it with another admin/editor to close it rather than relisting in for the 3rd time in a row. I work on Black /Africa related articles for the most part because that is my specialty and interest and we desperately need editors in this field which is under represented. People are driving away the few editors that work in this field which is beginning to give me a headache.Senegambianamestudy (talk) 09:57, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tl;dr - don't you have something worthwhile to spend your time on? Go away. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:50, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Toronto Transit Commission Bus Fleet article live again in articlespace[edit]

Hi Spartaz,
That article that you deleted here 23 January 2018 is up and running again as a WP:Redirect to Toronto Transit Commission#Buses. There appears to have been no consensus arrived at in the AfD discussion for the redirect.
What are your thoughts about this? Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 10:21, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Shh, but just between you and me, I don't give a fying fluck about bus route articles. Don't tell anyone else I said this, OK?

Me neither - I just close discussions. ;-) Thanks for the heads up, but having looked at it, I think the redirect and discussion in a larger article about mass transit is probably what should have been done in the first place. I can live with how it sits now. Happy editing. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:52, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of noticeboard discussion[edit]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. The discussion can be found here Senegambianamestudy (talk) 23:55, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aseefa Bhutto Zardari[edit]

Hi Spartaz, you just closed the subjected AfD and make it a redirection. There were only 2 supports for redirection (one from the article creator) therefore I don't think the redirection is warranted. Even though the subject is member of the Bhutto family but there is not a single mention about the subject on that Bhutto family page. --Saqib (talk) 08:26, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect is a common way of directing people who want to start an article on something non-notable to a page where they might be better off adding the line or two that whatever sources there are justify. I personally don't see the harm in the redirect its not compulsory to mention the subject when you set a redirect. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:54, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Manjappada[edit]

Thank you for closing AfD. This page was recreated when previous AfD was closed with delete. Do you think it'd make sense to protect the redirect page from able to recreate it again? Coderzombie (talk) 10:35, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lets see how we get on. Let me know if it comes back and I'll happily review. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:53, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Conor Lamb AfD Close[edit]

This looks like a consensus of keep to me. I was thinking about taking it back to AfD review. I was hoping you could provide me with your logic for no consensus. Casprings (talk) 11:05, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since the SNG POLITICIAN is stricter than the GNG and has project wide acceptance I felt tyat policyness of the arguments balanced out because delete is the policy based argument but most people wanted to keep it.. Plus, if he loses it becomes a more sustainable 1E argument that supports POLITICIAN so its too soon to know how this one will finally playout. NC feels better from that perspective and is functionally the same as keep. Take it to DRV if you like, I have no dog in the fight but its as rare as hen’s teeth for DRV to change an NC to Keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:13, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think I will take it there. I think its likely that he will meet WP:N, even if he loses. Casprings (talk) 01:15, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Conor Lamb[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Conor Lamb. 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. Casprings (talk) 01:22, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning edit[edit]

Hi Spartaz. Check out this edit you made, where not only was the term delinked, but the entire line was removed. I don't know if you did this, or the script did this, but something needs to be examined. Thanks! — Huntster (t @ c) 19:50, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Its sources that win an argument and this clearly is not met so the policy based argument is delete[edit]

Please improve your spelling and grammar friend! That should have read "It's". Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:09, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

wp:preserve[edit]

Why did you delete this article instead leaving the history ans redirecting? I would like to merge some of its content. FloridaArmy (talk) 06:23, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Because the consensus of the discussion was that it didn't meet NMUSIC and no-one suggested a merge. What exactly do you intend to merge or is this simply a device to force through keeping the history? Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:32, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Several sources were noted in the discussion and aside from the Keep votes a commenter did say it was best covered in the band's article. Yes, I would like the history and contents available so I can use the cites and content, including bits I added during the deletion discussion, to expand the band's article. You haven't addressed why deleting the history was constructive or consistent with policy.FloridaArmy (talk) 14:53, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Spartaz, per the above discussion could you please move the Fa Fa Fa article to my userspace so I can merge it into the band's article? Thanks. FloridaArmy (talk) 22:21, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Karen Drury[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Karen Drury. 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. 82.19.95.171 ^Talk 09:41, 03 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You don't seem to have raised a DRV. What was your actual question about the close? Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:11, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Civility in infobox discussions case opened[edit]

You were recently listed as a party to or recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility in infobox discussions. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility in infobox discussions/Evidence. Please add your evidence by February 17, 2018, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility in infobox discussions/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:49, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Closing of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/May Tha Hla[edit]

Are you sure this was the correct close? 2 !votes for "delete" and 2 for "keep." Both keep !votes cited policy reasons. Only 1 "delete" vote seemed based on policies and the other was literally a minute after they !voted in a different AfD with the incorrect statement "The BBC honor is not enough to show notability." --Oakshade (talk) 21:27, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I am because I read the comments not the bold bits and didn't count the votes but the policyness of the votes. The BBC counts as a single source and the independantness of them promoting their own list reduces its particular value. DGGs analysis of the Huff Post source with the lack of independance and lack of refutation of DGGs point was compelling. The keep after was more of a delete than a keep whatever the bolding as it comfirmed the sourcing for a proper bio wasn't there. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:40, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vimala's Curryblossom Cafe[edit]

Hi I noticed your comment asking the non-admin closer of this AFD to reopen the discussion. I had a look at the discussion and from what I can see a lot of the keep votes were swayed by the mention of the restaurant in a book called Forked etc. I checked out this source and from what I can find the restaurant and its owner are part of the ROC united organisation created by the author of this book a good few years before the book came out. This suggests that the publication is far from being independent. I found a couple of sources dating back to 2013. Will you be asking for a deletion review? Dom from Paris (talk) 09:55, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My view was the discussion was tending keep rather than NC as the analysis of the sourcing wasn't great. Perhaps give it a month an renominate with that detailed analysis. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:27, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice. Cheers Dom from Paris (talk) 15:53, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Denver Online High School AfD[edit]

Hi Spartaz. I noticed that you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Denver Online High School with the summary "There is very long standing consensus on this". That seems to ignore the recent RfC that found that secondary schools are not inherently notable, and also a number of recent secondary school AfDs that go against the previous consensus. Did you attempt to assess consensus in the actual AfD discussion at all, as that isn't clear from your summary? Cordless Larry (talk) 15:31, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There was no consensus to delete. The RFC is more frequently not the deciding factor in school AFDs then a positive argument for delete. I simply don't see a consensus in the discussion to put the RFC ahead of traditional outcomes. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:43, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a keep consensus either. The first keep comment just poses a question about inherent notability, and the second doesn't appear to be policy-based. Only DGG's keep comment really offers much of a rationale. Can I request that you re-open discussion? Cordless Larry (talk) 15:53, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it makes a blind difference. This discussion is never going to get closed as delete so I don't think it benefits anyone to reopen this. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:43, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll take this to deletion review then. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:57, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Denver Online High School[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Denver Online High School. 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. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:06, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of authoritarian regimes supported by the United States[edit]

You closed the AfD as delete, but didn't delete the page. Sandstein 08:00, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:23, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good Afternoon, I must respectfully disagree with the decision to delete this page. I firmly believe that the page could have been fixed and I consider deletion to have been an unnecessary move. TheEarth1974 (talk) 18:08, 10 February 2018 (UTC)TheEarth1974[reply]

The problem is that the arguments about SYNTH and iNDISCRIMINATE were not at all refuted and any viable list has to have a clear basis on which to judge inclusion yet noone disputed that there was no agreed definition of authoritarian or support. That made the whole thing unviable and supported deletion arguments. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:41, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How can you say that there wasn't an agreed upon definition of "authoritarian"? We already have a well written, well sourced article that provides a very precise definition: "Authoritarianism is a form of government characterized by strong central power and limited political freedoms." And most countries listed on that page fit that definition perfectly. As for "support", which was perfectly defined in the first sentence of the introduction: "the United States government has provided, and continues to provide, financial assistance, education, arms, military training and technical support", I believe the individual sources provided more than sufficient clarification and justification for the vast majority of the countries included.

Most of TheTimesAreAChanging's examples of badly sourced inclusions also doesn't hold up under scrutiny:

Azerbaijan: the objection completely ignores the source pointing to Dimensions of Authoritarian Persistence: Lessons from Post-Soviet States, which states "It is possible to conclude that the United States was more concerned with the possible loss of a strategic ally in an unstable region than the development of democratic principles in Azerbaijan. In addition the United States wanted to restore relations with Azerbaijan to their former level, and thus it turned a blind eye to their democratic requirements." And it would not be difficult to find other sources for US support to Azerbaijan, or that Azerbaijan is highly authoritarian.
Bahrain: Can easily be amended to say 1991-present, which is backed by the US State Department which states "Since the 1991 Gulf War, the U.S. has provided military and defense technical assistance and training to Bahrain from Foreign Military Sales (FMS), commercial sources, excess defense article sales (EDA) and under the International Military and Education Training (IMET) program." and "U.S. military sales to Bahrain since 2000 total $608.9 million. Principal U.S. military systems acquired by the BDF include eight Apache helicopters, 54 M60A3 tanks, 22 F-16C/D aircraft, 20 Cobra helicopters, 20 M109A5 Howitzers, 1 Avenger AD system, and the TPS-59 radar system. Bahrain has received $410 million in U.S. EDA acquisition value delivered since the U.S.-Bahraini program began in 1993.". It's also hard to see how Bahrain's classification as authoritarian could be seriously questioned by anyone.
Brunei: Can easily be amended to say 1994-present, which is backed up by the primary source (the US State Department) which states "A memorandum of understanding on defense cooperation was signed in 1994. In 2011, Brunei and the United States held an inaugural Senior Officials Dialogue, creating a new forum for high-level coordination and communication." And TheTimesAreAChanging's immediate dismissal of the country's implementation of a criminal code with punishments including stoning, flogging and amputation as a characteristic of authoritarianism is simply astonishing. Of course, it's not hard to find other sources to support such classification for Brunei.

I completely agree with TheEarth1974 and others that this page should not have been deleted, and that it would be trivial to fix whatever imperfections it might have had. The claim that the page violated WP:INDISCRIMINATE is just baffling, and to say that interpreting military and financial aid (or "strategic cooperation") as "support" when talking about international relations with brutal dictatorships constitute WP:SYNTH is being willfully ignorant. Tissn (talk) 18:30, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dovetail Joint (band)[edit]

Hello, any chance I could get this article userfied? I have new evidence of notability not considered in the AfD (they charted on Billboard). Chubbles (talk) 09:11, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

want me to undelete and relist it? Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:41, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever the usual protocol is for such things these days. I don't pay enough attention at AfD to know how things have changed lately. Chubbles (talk) 21:17, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dovetail Joint (band) (2nd nomination) Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:35, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, this is turning out terribly. This is a bona-fide notable band I spent four hours saving and it's going to get picked off anyway. Is it necessary to go through a second AfD in such cases now? I'd like to avoid having to do that in the future if at all possible. Chubbles (talk) 02:57, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Airline destinations AfDs[edit]

How much time are you going to give the other parties to take the issue to DRV? I agree that it would be nice to hear from some uninvolved editors as I feel that many are already tired of this drawn out discussion. If this never goes to another venue though then a date of deletion should be set. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:35, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I covered that in my close - two weeks. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:54, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Knowledgekid87: Don't you worry, I'm starting a DRV as soon as I can unless anybody else beats me to it.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 20:04, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you believe the consensus in the discussion is "delete", you should delete the pages (also, you should re-consider your understanding of "consensus"). If you believe the discussion should close in a way that keeps the pages, close the discussion as "keep". If you don't want to make such a decision, please re-open the AFD. Passing the decision on to DRV is not a way to find out whether consensus becomes more clear, it only means shopping the issue to yet another forum (after it has been discussed at the pump, AN and AFD (first time in proper venue)). —Kusma (t·c) 20:15, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Adria Airways destinations[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Adria Airways destinations. 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. --Jetstreamer ^Talk 20:35, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RFC on transportation related lists[edit]

I’ve started an RFC on transportation related lists. See WP:VPP#transportation lists BillHPike (talk, contribs) 23:53, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Article for Deletion[edit]

Hello, a few days ago you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dovetail Joint (band) with a decision to delete, but the article still exists. Will the article disappear automatically or is there something I have to do as the nominator? Thanks. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 21:41, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I relisted it because of a credible claim to notability, there is a new discussion you may wish to comment on. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:54, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dragonite AFD close[edit]

Hey, thank you for this. You seem to have implemented my proposal for protecting the page, but technically, my proposal was to redirect, not delete and recreate as a redirect. I did not check if there was specific useful content that could be lost to non-admins by deleting and recreating, and my !vote was based on BRD, which would not support the hiding of the page history. I wonder if you'd consider undeleting, redirecting and protecting the original page? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:24, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

done Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:03, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is this move a mistake?[edit]

See Women's football in French Guianau, thanks! Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 14:10, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lo like it. Thanks for pointing it out. I have fixed it. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:15, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

== Deletion review for The Lafayette Club

Deletion review for The Lafayette Club[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of The Lafayette Club. 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. Kioj156 (talk) 15:50, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

David Nance[edit]

Hi again...could I beggar you for a userfied copy of this article? Looks like another case of the !voters not doing any WP:BEFORE ([9], [10], [11], [12]). Chubbles (talk) 08:50, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Another Daily Mail RfC[edit]

There is an RfC at Talk:Daily Mail#Request for comment: Other criticisms section. Your input would be most helpful. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:08, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MILL[edit]

I'm here to ask for help understanding notability criteria. You recently closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Homelessness services in Snohomish County with a deletion decision, an article to which I contributed, so I certainly have some sunk cost bias in this case that may cloud my understanding. I'm mostly here to ask for clarification of WP:MILL, which was the primary justification for deletion. I had never heard of WP:MILL, and didn't take it seriously since it was an essay rather than a guideline, and because Wikipedia is full of articles like Puente de Vallecas that would seem to indicate that MILL does not represent widespread consensus. I thought the article clearly met WP:GNG and was amply cited from RS. The arguments against the article seemed like WP:ITSLOCAL.

So I'm left with a pile of questions. Is MILL widely accepted? An essay isn't a legitimate argument in a deletion discussion per WP:NOTPOLICY, right? Doesn't a deletion discussion about notability need to focus on the actual notability guidelines? Is it appropriate to delete an article as MILL when there are no other similar articles? Maybe I should have asked the folks at Wikipedia talk:Run-of-the-mill for input before the discussion was closed, but I am wary of canvassing. Daask (talk) 02:00, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Arguments about routine or run of the mill coverage are often accepted in discussions i other editors pick up the thread. Essentially the argument was as much about what wikipedia is not and overreach leading to or via synth. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:01, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ysgol Penybryn, Tywyn: Revision history[edit]

So where's the history of Ysgol Penybryn, Tywyn: Revision history you deleted? I want to see if I agree with you. Monsyn (talk) 19:16, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Its been deleted per the consensus of the discussion. Its not a question of agreeing with me as I simply follow the consensus of the discussion. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:57, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Nostalgia Critic episodes (2018)[edit]

Why did you delete that page? It was important! Morty340 (talk) 22:39, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be your only edit. I'm confused what your connection to this is. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:03, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A cup of coffee for you![edit]

A cup of tea for you ! ATK55 talk 06:44, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Maamaankam (2018 film)[edit]

Hai Sir, I am surprised of speedy deletion of Maamaankam (2018 film) . I believe this movie had enough reference.I like to review it. Thank you Yourmistake (talk) 03:36, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Upasana RC[edit]

Hi, can you please consider moving this to the userspace of Chiraag7 (talk · contribs) as 3 of 4 comments supported draft or delete or draft. It's on my watchlist so I'll keep an eye on it, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 16:52, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:10, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[1] This survey is primarily meant to get feedback on the Wikimedia Foundation's current work, not long-term strategy.

[2] Legal stuff: No purchase necessary. Must be the age of majority to participate. Sponsored by the Wikimedia Foundation located at 149 New Montgomery, San Francisco, CA, USA, 94105. Ends January 31, 2017. Void where prohibited. Click here for contest rules.

[1]

[2]

v t e The Challenge series – Current drives
Africa	Africa 10,000 Challenge
Asia	Asia 10,000 Challenge
Europe	European 10,000 Challenge Nordic 2500 Challenge
Latin America/Caribbean	Latin America 10,000 Challenge
North America	Canada 10,000 Challenge United States 50,000 Challenge: California New England New York North Carolina Pacific Northwest
UK and Ireland	UK and Ireland 10,000 Challenge
1000 Challenges by topic	Indian cinema Video games