User talk:Pax:Vobiscum/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

User:Tom.mevlie is back

Hi, I believe a user that had been blocked previously for operating sockpuppet accounts is back:

User:Will.M.Thompson, is a member of WikiProject Novels and WikiProject Led Zeppelin. He states on his user page "I am essentially a trouble maker, which is what I do, I cause trouble, and through no fault of my own generally. I have the beautiful blessing of always being right, and this is something I stick to. Look around, I'm correct all of the time."

Another sockpuppet account belonging to Tom.mevlie called User:WilliamMThompson was blocked in April 2008. User:DangerTM, a banned sockpuppet of mevlie, is also a member of the the same wikiprojects as User:Will.M.Thompson. EastPerthRoyals (talk) 00:44, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's the same user, but there is no reason to block him now, he only uses 1 account and behaves well (as far as I know). Best wishes/ Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 01:23, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Robert Frost

Could this page be unprotected? I wanted to add some info about the special archival collection at our library. Thanks! Skyelass (talk) 21:15, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Sure, let's try unprotection and see how it goes. Best wishes/ Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 01:00, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Now you see why this page was protected. GroveGuy (talk) 19:03, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Um yea, I was the one who protected it almost a year ago. It's a good idea to try lifting the protection of certain articles every once in a while, but this one clearly still needs protection. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 01:14, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

B&O passenger trains

Hello, I see you've recently moved/renamed a number of these articles. While the rationale is understandable, please note that many pages/templates linked to the former names are now redirects. Per WP:MOVE, it is recommended practice to make all redirect pages that are indented in the list of links to redirect to the page you moved to. Regards,  JGHowes  talk 20:46, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

You are absolutely right, and I'll do it once I have finished moving the last articles (still a small number left). That way I can do the link fixes more efficiently and avoid clogging the histories with several edits per article. Cheers/ Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 00:56, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Cool. By the way, there's also WP:TWP/MOS#Articles about named passenger train services style guide regarding the Trains Project's preferred article naming for passenger trains. All the best,  JGHowes  talk 01:53, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Yea I discovered that one well after I started moving everything. I'm not sure if they ever discussed the disambiguation practice or if it's just Slambo's suggestion on how to do it. Here is the discussion that started the process, in case you haven't seen it already. Best wishes/ Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 09:46, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Manchester City F.C.

Hi; hope you won't mind too much, but I asked another admin to review the semi-protection on Manchester City F.C., which you placed there just over a year ago. It was at the request of a new user to Wikipedia, and I always like to try and make them welcome. I think removing the semi is worth a shot; I'll keep an eye on the article myself.

I realise it'll be a potential target, but then again, that's true of all the big footie teams. We can give it a shot, anyway.

Once again, apologies for not asking you first, but I noticed you'd not been active for a few weeks.

Best,  Chzz  ►  17:43, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

No problem, thanks for letting me know. It's (almost) always a good idea to try unprotection every once in a while. Cheers/ Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 07:18, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

IP block

Can I request a block on the following ip address: 89.165.66.70 that twice vandalised my user page today [[1]] and [[2]]? Thanks--AssegaiAli (talk) 22:11, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for not being able to respond sooner. Since my wikipedia time currently is very limited I suggest you contact an active admin if you should have more problems. You can request semi-protection of your user page at WP:RFPP and you can report repeated vandalism to WP:AIV. Best wishes/ Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 12:10, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


Proposed deletion of Purity and danger

The article Purity and danger has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Nothing here that hadn't better been expressed in a sentence in the author's biography

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. meco (talk) 16:11, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Charles Darwin

  • 15:14, 23 October 2007 Pax:Vobiscum protected Charles Darwin ‎ (IP vandalism [edit=autoconfirmed:move=autoconfirmed])

That was nearly two years ago. I'd like to review this to see if semiprotection is still necessary. Please see the discussion I started on Talk:Charles Darwin. --TS 10:55, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. I've left a reply on the talk page. Best wishes/ Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 16:33, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Pax:Vobiscum! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 2 of the articles that you created are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to insure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. if you were to bring these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 941 article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the list:

  1. Nils Lindberg - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
  2. David Ridgway (scholar) - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 21:33, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Manual of style

Hi Pax:Vobiscum! I have reverted your recent edits to the article Israel Defense Forces because it created serious formatting problems, broken links, and did not comply with Wikipedia:Manual of Style, which I strongly encourage you to review (especially WP:DASH). I hope you take this as constructive criticism and not an attack. Cheers, Ynhockey (Talk) 01:59, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for letting me know and thanks for cleaning up my mess! I'll be sure to read up on the dashes. Best wishes/ Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 14:59, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for taking care of this. Could you also take a look at the same article in the user's subpage here. Given that it has another persons name it is a borderline attack, or otherwise perhaps deletable per wp:NOTMYSPACE. Thanks again.  7  08:42, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

No problem, I deleted the other one too. Have a good day! /Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 08:51, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks!  7  08:59, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Oblivion Lost

Thanks Pax:Vobiscum Oblivion Lost (talk) 17:52, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Hans Hagen and Taco Hoekwater

Please undelete these articles; I would have contested the speedy if you hadn't been so speedy.--Oneiros (talk) 13:55, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi and thanks for stopping by. I maintain that none of those 2 articles suggest proper notability (and thus the verifiability of the information) to warrant articles on wikipedia. If you could point me to any reliable sources that suggest otherwise I'd be happy to undelete them. Also, feel free to use the deletion review process. Best wishes/ Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 15:26, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
They are both the authors of ConTeXt (the alternative to LaTeX) and LuaTeX (one of the currently developed succesors of TeX). Is that notability enough?--Oneiros (talk) 15:33, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
The crucial question is if there are any reliable sources (such as newspaper articles or something similar) that the articles can be based on. If the guys haven't been the subject of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" (read more here), then they are not notable in the wikipedia sense of the word. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 15:43, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
They have. Just to remind you: You speedily deleted articles without any prior discussion. This should be done only sparely. See you in the reviews.--Oneiros (talk) 15:46, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Btw: You misunderstand A7. It's not about notability.--Oneiros (talk) 16:26, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
In my opinion the articles do not make "any credible claim of significance or importance" and are therefor eligible for speedy deletion under A7. You apparently disagree, and that's fine, that's what the deletion review process is for. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 17:16, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
At the start of this discussion you claimed missing notability. That's not what A7 is for. And you should really read WP:ATD.--Oneiros (talk) 14:12, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes, the importance criteria of A7 is a lower standard than notability and I've never claimed anything else. I still don't see their importance nor any sign of notability. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 15:01, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Deletion review for Hans Hagen

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Hans Hagen. 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. Oneiros (talk) 15:59, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Deletion review for Taco Hoekwater

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Taco Hoekwater. 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. Oneiros (talk) 15:59, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Deletion review for Till Tantau

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Till Tantau. 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. Oneiros (talk) 16:17, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Rich Shapero

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Rich Shapero. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rich Shapero. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:11, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Article possibly recreated after speedy delete

I notice you A7 deleted Krohn and Moss. I believe the same author has just created Krohn and Moss Consumer Law Center (I noticed the new article because the author added promotional links to the article from Lemon Law and Lemon (automobile), which I removed). I do not know if any further action is required, and am leaving this purely FYI. Johnuniq (talk) 11:07, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 13:59, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

DRV possibly of interest to you

I've listed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rich Shapero, a discussion you contributed strongly to, at WP:DRV as I didn't think it was a valid close: see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 May 15. Alzarian16 (talk) 10:55, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

How I Wonder What You Are

Hello,

On May 2 you speedy-deleted ' "how i wonder what You Are ' "how_i_wonder_what_You_Are&action=edit&redlink= as a duplicate topic for Shutter Island (film). The article was re-created and moved to How I Wonder What You Are. Judging from this article it looks unlikely that it is a duplicate of Shutter Island - one is a big-budget Hollywood movie, the other is an independent production from Sri Lanka with a different director and no Hollywood stars ;) I suspect you have been the victim of an inaccurate speedy tag placed on the original article.

The only reason this matters now is that one user has tried to use the previous deletion as a reason to delete the current incarnation which seems unfair since it was apparently done in error. Of course G4 should not be used for articles that were only speedy-deleted before (as opposed to having a deletion discussion) but there's always the chance that some admin might delete it without checking the details.

I hope this doesn't come across as a complaint about your actions, which I am sure were all done in trust and good faith, but would you consider placing a note on the article talk page to say that the previous deletion was in error?

Cheers, Thparkth (talk) 19:07, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi and thanks for stopping by. The article I deleted wasn't actually about "How I Wonder What You Are", it was a cut & paste copy of the Shutter Island article with some minor adjustments, so my deletion was (as far as I can see) correct. The recreated article is a totally different thing and should not be speedily deleted although its notability could be discussed. Cheers/ Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 11:00, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes, thanks for the note, I've been appraised of the full history of the article now and I understand that your initial deletion was entirely correct. Cheers! Thparkth (talk) 11:05, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muir Skate Longboard Shop (2nd nomination)

Hi, Pax:Vobiscum. Because you participated in Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 May 12#Muir Skate Longboard Shop, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muir Skate Longboard Shop (2nd nomination). Cunard (talk) 02:10, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Rich Shapero

I have nominated Rich Shapero, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rich Shapero (2nd nomination). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Tim Song (talk) 04:21, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Charlotte Centre Curling Club

Please immeidately delete File:Charlotte Curling Logo.jpg since it is no longer needed as you censored the article it was for.

Thank you for your attention, --WaxonWaxov (talk) 10:53, 24 May 2010 (UTC), who will forever be a Wikipedia Inclusionist

DELETION REVIEW: You cite notability as the reason for deletion. Did you review this piece that was cited in the original article that you deleted? [[3]] This is the May, 2010 issue of the U.S. Curling News, the official newletter of the United States Curling Association. About 80% of page three of that newsletter, which is sent to every member of the above named associtaion, was dedicated to the topic. Let me say that another way: The National Governing Body of an Olympic Sport dedicated almost entire of it's final newsletter for the season to the Charlotte Centre Curling Club. That, in my opinion, makes notability. I would also argue that curling clubs in the US are unigue within their geographic regions. If a person wants to know about the sport of curling in Charlotte, then there is only one place to go. Thank you again for your attention.--WaxonWaxov (talk) 11:18, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi! The general opinion of the participants in the discussion was that the coverage was not enough to reach the level of coverage needed for an article on wikipedia. The job of the closing admin is not to impose his own view on things but to sum up and interpret the discussion (and make sure it's according to wikipedia policy). If you can find a few articles in mainstream newspapers that would change the situation. If you would like me to I can move the article to your userspace so you could work on it. Cheers/ Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 12:51, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes, go ahead and move it to my userspace. Thanks for clarifying that you didn't look at the cites in the article.WaxonWaxov (talk) 04:26, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
It's now available at User:WaxonWaxov/Charlotte Centre Curling Club. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 06:42, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Yet Another Review Site

Hi, you just deleted the page for Yet Another Review Site. I was wondering if you read contest comments or replied to them before going ahead. I cited several examples of similar content that was still live and asked for advice on how to improve the article? Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daverage (talk • contribs) 14:45, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi! For a website to be the subject of an article on wikipedia there needs to be "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" (see WP:GNG). That has to do with wikipedia's policy of verifiability, which basically means that we need to have a neutral source where we can confirm the contents of an article. So if for example there are magazine articles that discuss the website that could be a start. Some of the articles you mentioned (Craig Harris (journalist) and Gamezebo) could probably be deleted because they don't seem to have the kind of sources we require. Cheers/ Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 15:17, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Revision to Sid Meier's Alien Crossfire and Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri articles

I noticed that you have revised either Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri or Sid Meier's Alien Crossfire.

I intend to revise those articles following the Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines. There are more details on the discussion pages of those articles. I'd be interested in any comments you have. It would be best if your comments were on the discussion pages of the two articles.

Thank you.

Vyeh (talk) 19:58, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Opera article moves

Hi there. Just a note to say that when you move opera articles to a new title, make sure that you change the link in the accompanying composer navigation templates, e.g. [4]. Otherwise, it will produce a circular link. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 17:20, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Yup, you're right although I'm not quite sure what you mean with a circular link. It wasn't a double redirect, just s single (although I agree that even single redirects should be avoided in templates). Ciao/ Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 18:21, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Pity the Fool

Dear Vobiscum

I put up a page called 'Pity the Fool' about 3 to 4 months back, the admins requested the page for speedy deletion because the page had no evidence that the band is notable according to the criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (music). Please see my recent comment, I had to wait for a new Ptf song to be released and now it is on the charts, please can you assist me in getting the page up again. Thank you

Kind regards Daniel Raubenheimer Danielptf (talk) 20:42, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

You've made this request elsewhere[5][6][7] and signed yourself Daniel Raubenheimer. That's a member of the band to which you're referring. If you're him, you shouldn't be involved in creating the article, 'cause it's conflict of interest, dude. Just sayin'. Also, new comments go at the bottom of a talk page, just so's you know. --Ebyabe (talk) 21:55, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Stubsensor

As a previous volunteer at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stubsensor I though you might like to know there is a new set available for work at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stubsensor/20100826. Hope to see you there. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 10:54, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Your userpage is in a category

 Your userpage User:Pax:Vobiscum/rfpp has a category, and so appears in Category:Wikipedia noticeboards.
As the guideline on userpages describes, this is undesired. It is suggested that you edit the userpage to prevent this showing. It can be done by adding a colon (:) before the word Category, like this: [[:Category:Wikipedia noticeboards]].-DePiep (talk) 01:16, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know! / Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 10:12, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Adopt-a-user reminder

Hello, I have completed a general cleanup of the adopter information page for the adopt-a-user project, located here. During my cleanup, I have removed several inactive and retired users. In order to provide interested adoptees with an easy location to find adopters, it is essential that the page be up-to-date with the latest information possible. Thus:

  • If you are no longer interested in being an adopter, please remove yourself from the list.
  • If you are still interested, please check the list to see if any information needs to be updated or added - especially your availability. Thank you.
  • You are receiving this message because you are listed as an adopter here.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Netalarm (talk) at 03:45, 23 September 2010 (UTC).

FYI

Since you closed the recent AfD on Texas Disposal Systems Landfill v. Waste Management Holding, I thought you should be aware of this COI warning. Austex has been previously warned by other admins about this type of conduct, including a block for using socks to edit COI articles.

As I mentioned on the AfD, I did not have a problem if the article was deleted for the reasons I stated there. If the article is going to be kept however, it should be held to Wikipedia standards, and not "spin-doctored" to present an inaccurate representation of the case.

He is editing material into/out of the article that was discussed in detail at the D** M***** (public affairs) talk page, and rejected by a consensus of the uninvolved editors as being not accurate.

I have requested that he self-revert, and if he does so, do not see that further action is necessary. If he does not self-revert, I would request that perhaps you look at the situation and take whatever admin action that you deem necessary. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 14:13, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I have done the self reversion (although, apologies, it took me two tries to get it right as a complete reversion and not an undo). I am not and will not do anything in the nature of sockpuppetry. Note: One problem with a complete reversion back to before my edits is that it also reverts your closure of the AfD. So if you don't mind, would you re-do your closure as before please. Perhaps there is a better way administratively to roll back the article in a different way but I am not aware of such procedures.
Also, yes, I do have quite a number of suggested edits since this is a "keep," and will propose those through the normal COI procedure. I would hope that GregJackP would agree that the article as is stands now is a discussion with at least a partical focus on my involvement in the case and not the involvement of others. This is understandable since it was an offshoot of a page about me that was later found to be not-notable and was deleted. Now that the Martin page is deleted, this article needs to be less centered on me personally and more on the case as a whole. Earler edit suggesitons were not accepted because it was in the context of an article on me personally. Now that this no longer exists, this article needs to be a stand-alone article about the lawsuit. I'm sure GregJackP meant it to be as well-rounded as possible, but things like (speaking of "spin doctoring") quoting an industry magazine speculating on the outcome, for example, is entirely inappropriate. The outcome will be known soon enough without outsider speculation. Austex • Talk 19:04, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Lastly, there was indeed a consensus of uninvolved editors to delete the Martin page, but I do not recall any significant dicsussion of uninvolveed editors - as you say there was - re the lawsuit article. I could be wrong. But I do not beleive it ever had a thorough review and I certainly did not offer edits other than one of two at that time. Since it is now being kept it deserves a thorough review (not, as you say, "spin doctoring"). I will scrupulous follow the rules, but will offer a number of suggestions via the talk page. Austex • Talk 19:23, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
I have suggested several edits on the article talk page using the "Request edit" template for CIO edits. Austex • Talk 20:08, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Adam Thompson

Hi there. Sorry to bother you, and I mean that profusely, because I realise just how often you must get people questioning your decisions as an admin. Nonetheless, I was wondering if you would be willing to re-evaluate your recent AfD closure.

Clearly I have a POV, and the following should therefore be taken with a pinch of salt. But my analysis of the discussion is:

  • That I made an argument based on the GNG and NFOOTBALL.
  • That DitzyNizzy made an argument based on NFOOTBALL (albeit without directly quoting it).
  • That Sandman888 made an argument based on the GNG (albeit without directly quoting it).
  • That Sven Manguard's (keep) argument should be dismissed as it is not based in policy or guidelines.
  • That Gregorik's (delete) argument should be given some but little weight as a "per someone else" post.
  • That Eggman06's argument is partly a WP:OTHERSTUFF argument, and partly based on a previously slightly lower standard that no longer applies. While there are some extremely valid points about the value of having a strong guideline on the notability of footballers, those points do not appear relevant in this particular AfD.
  • That the strength or otherwise of GiantSnowman's argument boils down to whether or not NFOOTBALL is a stricter measure of notability than the GNG.
  • That while weaker, the strength of EchetusXe's argument is very closely linked to the strength of GiantSnowman's.
  • That while weaker still (indeed, the post itself is factually incorrect), Daemonic Kangaroo's argument carries a degree of weight if GiantSnowman and EchetusXe's do.

In summary, there are three (four if you were to count a "per nom") delete arguments based on either or both of NFOOTBALL and the GNG. To close as a no-consensus instead of delete, I figured that you must have concluded that NFOOTBALL sets a higher standard than the GNG, and therefore that GiantSnowman, EchetusXe and Daemonic Kangaroo's arguments are valid.

I was wondering if you would be willing to elabourate on the decision, or if you would be happy to defer to a deletion review on the matter? I suggest deletion review as an option at this early stage not because I am in any doubt of your ability to explain your reasoning, but because the minefield of the various sports notability and sub-notability guidelines is a misery I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy unless they were entirely happy to wade into it.

Warm regards, —WFC— 15:46, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks for stopping by! I absolutely don't mind you asking for a more detailed explanation, especially in a case like this where the outcome of the discussion was (in my opinion) borderline no consensus/delete. What made this AfD hard to close was the fact that there was no real discussion regarding how the GNG applied. The NFOOTBALL guideline is, just like you said, irrelevant if there are not enough sources in the first place. The sources are certainly few, but they are (in my opinion) just enough to satisfy the GNG. Having looked over the discussion again I still think no consensus is the least bad interpretation despite the dysfunctional argumentation of the keep side. I wouldn't mind a deletion review at all, feedback is always welcome and I can see how someone else might have closed this one differently. Cheers/ Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 18:37, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. On reflection, I don't think there's any point in a deletion review, as you are correct. As the closer you can only go on what's there, and the fact that the article remains is the fault of those of us !voting delete not initiating a detailed discussion on the GNG. My thinking during the debate was that if no-one refutes an assertion, there's generally no point in expanding on it, but hey, we live and we learn.
That said, I do feel the need to pursue this in some way. Even though this was a no-consensus close, my concern is that if nothing is done, decisions like this will pave the way for the creation of more articles that don't make clear assertions of meeting the GNG. That may sound like a weak justification, but a glance at the sheer number of BLPs that EchetusXe, GiantSnowman and Daemonic Kangaroo have created between them sheds a different light on the matter- if editors such as that see decisions such as this and reach the conclusion that the bar for football articles is lower than they previously though, they will create many articles taht fall into this category. Although I agree with Egghead: we should try to minimise piecemeal discussions. And I think that the way to achieve that is to get views from the wider community on how the GNG applies to footballers, and then attempt to use these views to form a stronger guideline on the notability of footballers.
To that end, would you object if I were to make a second nomination? While a second AfD in quick succession is normally frowned upon, I think it would be justified on the basis that it would provide clarity on what sort of coverage is necessary for a footballer to pass the GNG, which in turn could help us improve NFOOTBALL in the long run. Regards, —WFC— 06:46, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
That's not be a bad idea, it would basically be a relisting to clarify the question of the source material, I do not object. Personally I think the sources are just about enough, but since I closed the first AfD I won't participate in the new discussion. Best wishes/ Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 08:04, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

TDSL v Waste Management Appeals Decision

Deletion review for Texas Disposal Systems Landfill v. Waste Management Holding

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Texas Disposal Systems Landfill v. Waste Management Holding. 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.


My apologies as it has taken me quite a while to track you down as the closing administrator (I'm not all that adept here), but I would have contacted you earlier. I have asked for a Review of the AfD decision to keep this article. I am not sure that I have filed it in the proper manner however for it to come up on the "review" page for discussion, although it does come up properly on the header above the article.

Anyway, as the closing administrator, I wanted to share with you my reasoning FOR a deletion in a more clear and thoughtful manner. Your input and feedback is most welcome, even if you do not agree.

I have requested an appeal of the AfD that resulted in a "keep" for this article. There was much extranious discussion largely centering on the quality of the citations and less on the necessity of the article. My request for an appeal and for deletion is based on a few simple concepts:

1) This is a non-notable article based on the article's content (regardless of references). Out of hundreds of lawsuits filed against this company every year, NONE of them -- not even one -- are reported in Wikipedia. So what makes this mid-level appeals decision on a basically insider's lawsuit between two waste companies so special that it merits an encyclopedia entry?


2) If the subject is to be covered, then it is the actual case itself that perhaps merits coverage and not one out of three appeals decisions (none of the other appeal decisions have their own articles). Further, this appeal is (to paraphrase the article's author) "just a mid level appeal at a state level that sets no precedents." (The author stated in the AfD that he has no concerns about the article being deleted or kept, either way. In other words he did not defend a "keep"). In addition the case is about to be re-tried all over again in the coming months, after which would be a far more appropraite time to do an article about the case and it's outcome. But the appeals decision does not itself merit coverage under any Wikipedia criteria. (Personally I don't think the case merits coverage either since no other Waste Management Inc lawsuit has ever merited coverage in Wikipedia, but then let me declare here and now that I have a personal WP:COI on this issue as a witness in the trial - but not a party to the suit).


3) Much weight in the AfD discussion was placed solely on the fact that "so many" articles covered the appeals decision, stating essentially that if the decision has so many articles about it (in the references) then surely it must be important. While many of these articles are not about the case per se, and others are simply insider trade publications, the fact is that there is nothing notable about the article regardless of references. To foolishly claim that references alone make it notable is to ignore the content, and to ignore the larger queston of what merits includsion in an encyclopedia. The article just adds useless information and space to Wikipedia without a full discussion of it it merits an entry.


4) This subject became an article solely as an offshoot of a BLP that was squbsequently deleted as being non-notable. This article focuses, subtly, to some degree on the original BLP issue to the exclusion of a more well rounded discussion of the facts of the case. It is true that the article was edited during the Afd process to make it somewhat more suitable, which I appreciate. But I have laid out 8 suggested changes above (on the article Discussion page)using the Request Edit function for CIO's to bring more balance. For now, it does not appear that anyone has an interest in using even a few of these to balance out the article and make it accurate, well balanced and complete. Without that balance, the article then also fails the WP:POV test as well (although I do not believe the author had any intent at all to insert a POV).


5) Lastly, this is an orphan article, and is rated of low importance on the WikipediaProjectLaw, and ProjectLaw Texas, and ProjectLaw Austin.


I would request that addtional editors review this article for possible deletion based on the reasons stated above. Austex • Talk 03:20, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks for your message. It is not up to the closing admin to make the decision, our role is to interpret the opinion of the community. In this case I think it was pretty clear that there was no consensus to delete the article. I currently don't have an opinion on whether or not the article should be kept. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 08:16, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Super Mash Bros

Speedily deletion and subsequent SALTing were inappropriate. There were numerous passages and references in the article attesting to the group's notability. You should have a discussion before making such drastic a step Purplebackpack89 20:59, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

4 other admins have deleted the article before. There was not a single reference to a properly published source. Should you find enough such sources I'd be happy to restore the article but right now nothing suggest that they have been the object of "significant coverage" (WP:GNG) in any sense. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 21:21, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion of Rampell & Rampell, P.A.

Hello, I am trying to setup a page for a business and it was deleted (A7: No explanation of the subject's significance (real person, animal, organization, or web content)). What is the proper way to get it recreated? I had just started it when the flag was put on for deletion, and I thought that I had said it was a firm page in the Talk section. Rrampell (talk) 21:24, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of townlands in County Laois

Hi - Since you closed this AFD, I had a question. As User:ww2censor pointed out, there are quite a few other Ireland Counties with duplicate lists like this one, such as List of townlands in County Tipperary and List of townlands of County Tipperary or List of townlands of County Tyrone and List of townlands in County Tyrone. Should the plain version of these sets be redirected as well? Thanks, ∙:∙:.:pepper:.:∙:∙ 15:12, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Redirecting articles is an editorial decision that does not require an AfD discussion (although it does of course require some sort of community backing). I think the discussion we had can be interpreted as a go ahead from the community to redirect similar articles. So while I have no authority to say that these should or should not be redirected, as a fellow editor I'd suggest being bold and going ahead. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 08:43, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of Rich Shapero for deletion

A discussion has begun about whether the article Rich Shapero, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rich Shapero until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 16:24, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of David Ridgway (scholar)

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on David Ridgway (scholar) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. --Nuujinn (talk) 13:40, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of David Ridgway (scholar) for deletion

A discussion has begun about whether the article David Ridgway (scholar), which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Ridgway (scholar) until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. --Nuujinn (talk) 16:29, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Roman Catholic Mariology Afd

Thank you for taking the time to read through the detailed discussion. History2007 (talk) 12:59, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your support at my RfA last week. I'll do everything I can to live up to your expectations and the trust you have shown in me. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 13:02, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Apriva

Based on your vote on the Apriva page("Not enough coverage in independent reliable sources."), I made adjustments and added in more information to try and prove the relevance of the article. Several more sources were added in. Based on your opinion, what else do you think I can do to ensure that the articles doesn't get deleted? Thanks for your time. Bfeddern (talk) 00:56, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I've looked it over and made a comment. What is needed is usually at least a couple of journalistic articles (properly published) on a subject to make it notable in the wikipedia sense of the word. Cheers/ Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 13:49, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Pax:Vobiscum. You have new messages at Cerejota's talk page.
Message added 14:50, 18 August 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Cerejota (talk) 14:50, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

AFD close

Did you realize that it was just relisted today? :o) causa sui (talk) 17:21, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Yea, pretty much the second I pressed the button (see the closing admin's talk page). :) If anyone wants to revert my close I have no issue with that. Cheers / Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 22:42, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

AfD : Chris Fudurich

I was informed that my wiki page has been deleted.

I've read your reasons and I think you should review. Stating that "Just working on notable records isn't enough in my opinion, they need to get coverage about them, or win major awards for their work, not just the song winning awards.", is pretty weak and somewhat offensive. These songs and records wouldn't exist as they are if it wasn't for my "working" on them. I am as much a part of the creation as the musicians involved. You should check the pages that have links to the page that was deleted because if my page has been deleted, it would only make sense for you to deleted those as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fudurich (talk • contribs) 00:40, 3 September 2011 (UTC)


MSU Interview

Dear Pax:Vobiscum,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, where it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.


So a few things about the interviews:

  • Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
  • Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
  • All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
  • All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
  • The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.


Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.


Sincerely,


Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 07:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Young June Sah --Yjune.sah (talk) 02:59, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

no consensus afd closes

Hi there, I was surprised to see that you closed a couple of Irish/Australian footballers AFDs as no consensus ie Brian Shortall. This surprised me as the main keep argument was based on an incorrect assessment of the importance of the international cup. I hope you didn't just count the !votes. The-Pope (talk) 15:57, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

It's not obvious to me whether the cup lives up to the phrasing of our guidelines or not. In this case there were obviously differing opinions on the matter, hence the close. Feel free to take it to WP:DELREV. cheers/ Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 19:23, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Debraj Shome (2nd nomination)

I most certainly did indicate that the sources provided were not adequate from which to write a biography, but were only incidental mentions. Ever single one of them. I am going to take this to DRV. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 22:25, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Deletion review for Debraj Shome

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Debraj Shome. 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. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 22:28, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

MSU Research Questions

Hello, I am involved with a research project for Michigan State University and am wondering if you would be able to answer a few questions regarding tool sets on Wikipedia. What were the tools you mainly used prior to becoming an admin, and after becoming an admin? Here is a link to the project if you are interested Wikipedia:United States Education Program/Courses/Wiki-Project Management (Jonathan Obar) , and if you have any questions please let me know. Thanks! Ltezl (talk) 22:14, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Request for comment

Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Intelligent Light

Hi, I don't where to post questions to you on this thing. Wouldn't it be good to have a section fot that?

I believe you are the admin responsible for deleting deleting the Intelligent Light sofware page. Please explain? Intelligent Light is a historically mportant program because, along with Wavefront, it was the inspiration for the Amiga Lightwave rendering software. A program which impacted the lives of many users and which is also still in production use today. I don't know the reason for the deletion, so I hoped you might take a moment to explain? Thanks.

And PS. Where do I post questions for admins to?  :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vapourmile (talk • contribs) 09:44, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection

Hello, Pax:Vobiscum. 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)

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins

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) 20:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

A new user right for New Page Patrollers

Hi Pax:Vobiscum.

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) 13:48, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Pax:Vobiscum. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter - February 2017

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

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

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

13:38, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Pax:Vobiscum. 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)

Notification of pending suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity

Information icon Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in more than one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed if you do not return to activity within the next month. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, that you have not been inactive for a three-year period of time, and that you have not been inactive from administrative tasks for a five year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three-year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. Further, following a community discussion in March of 2018, administrators suspended for inactivity who have not had any logged administrative activity for five years will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. — JJMC89 bot 00:04, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Pax:Vobiscum. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pax:Vobiscum/Archive_6&oldid=1139283301"