User talk:Sjakkalle/2010

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

Welcome to my talkpage!

Ordinarily, any comments placed here will stay, and only simple vandalism will be reverted. If you wish to make a personal attack against me it will stay for everyone to see. Someone else will judge whether an attack says more about you or about me however.

Note that I am quite inconsistent with where I make responses.

  • If it is a response I think several people might be interested in reading, I might respond here. Otherwise, I will probably respond on your talkpage.
  • I do not respond to every message (most notably RFA thank you notices), although I normally reply to requests and questions. Sometimes I am unable or do not have the time to do so (or I see that the problem has already been fixed). If I don't respond to your posting, please forgive me.

Previous archives of my talkpage can be found at

I am an administrator. If you need something done which needs admin tools, and it's uncontroversial, I'll do my best to be at your service. If it's an action which would be controversial, or which needs some sort of community discussion beforehand, I'll direct you to the appropriate forum.

Community de-Adminship - finalization poll for the CDA proposal[edit]

After tolling up the votes in the revision proposals, it emerged that 5.4 had the most support, but elements of that support remained unclear, and various comments throughout the polls needed consideration.

A finalisation poll (intended, if possible, to be one last poll before finalising the CDA proposal) has been run to;

  • gather opinion on the 'consensus margin' (what percentages, if any, have the most support) and
  • ascertain whether there is support for a 'two-phase' poll at the eventual RfC (not far off now), where CDA will finally be put to the community. Matt Lewis (talk) 01:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Important notice about VOTE 3 in the CDA poll[edit]

You are receiving this message as you have voted in VOTE 3 at the Community de-Adminship 'Proposal Finalization' Poll.

It has been pointed out that VOTE 3 was confusing, and that voters have been assuming that the question was about creating an actual two-phase CDA process. The question is merely about having a two-phase poll on CDA at the eventual RfC, where the community will have their vote (eg a "yes/no for CDA” poll, followed a choice of proposal types perhaps).

As I wrote the question, I'll take responsibility for the confusion. It does make sense if read through to the end, but it certainly wasn't as clear as it should have been, or needed to be!

Please amend your vote if appropriate - it seems that many (if not most) people interpreted the question in the way that was not intended.

Regards, Matt Lewis (talk) 16:09, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Given the strong opposition to a two-tier system, I don't think there is much point in running a poll as it is certain to produce a "no" result. My opposition to putting it "on the ballot" stays. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:18, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maldives substubs[edit]

Hello. I noticed that a few years ago you redirected many useless substubs about uninhabited islands such as Havoddaa to their relevant atolls (here Gaafu Dhaalu Atoll). I'd like to thank you for that, but there are still many that remain in Category:Uninhabited islands of the Maldives; most are from Dhaalu Atoll, Faafu Atoll, Alif Dhaal Atoll, and Gaafu Alif Atoll. I have started to redirect a few of them, but your help in finishing the job would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! Reywas92Talk 01:41, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Perhaps some time in the future, but the the mass redirection I made with these articles was in the slow "manual" manner (aided by multitabbing, but still tedious). At the moment I'm a bit short on time for wiki-activity I'm afraid. Thanks for redirecting what you can. :-) Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:27, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Castle Beware deletion[edit]

I really wanted to know why this page was deleted and marked as being an advertisement, when other pages, written extremely similar to my own, are allowed to stay?

Example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aelyria

Just need some clarification because I will be writing another article and I read through MANY other articles on wikipedia and I have no idea why they are allowed to stay, but mine was deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tanisloray (talk • contribs) 17:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion invitation[edit]

British Royalty Hi Sjakkalle/2010, I would like to invite you and anyone watching who shares an interest in moving forward constructively to a discussion about Biographies of Living People

New editors' lack of understanding of Wikipedia processes has resulted in thousands of BLPs being created over the last few years that do not meet BLP requirements. We are currently seeking constructive proposals on how to help newcomers better understand what is expected, and how to improve some 48,000 articles about living people as created by those 17,500 editors, through our proper cleanup, expansion, and sourcing.

These constructive proposals might then be considered by the community as a whole at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people.

Please help us:

Ikip 05:06, 28 January 2010 (UTC) Refactored this message a bit. thanks, hoping to hear from you. Ikip 17:48, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sorry about not responding earlier. I am at present in a tight spot on time, and unable to contribute heavily to policy discussions. I can mention that Category:All unreferenced BLPs would be easier to navigate if it could be split up by nationality, but at present I'm afraid I don't have much else to offer. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:16, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another candidate?[edit]

If Pål Johansen is deleted, should Evidence Knowledge Exchange be considered as well? Geschichte (talk) 08:48, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but I haven't run a search of Google sources to see if the institution is notable or not. Institutions often have more impact than the employees, including the leader, which explains why we have many articles on high schools but few on principals. Whether this institution is notable or not, I have not checked, but if you think it isn't notable, I think a PROD template will be in order.
BTW, The last prod-notices have been because I have taken some arbitrary picking of (mostly) Norwegians in the unreffed BLP category to get an idea of what is there and give my small contribution to fix them up if worth fixing. It is a mixed bag. Most of the articles on Norwegians I have found so far are readily sourceable, but it did worry me that I had to make a few factual corrections to several of them (nothing really serious or libellous, but worrying nonetheless). One article was an utter hoax which I prod-ed and which Decltype speedy-deleted; that one really ought to have been discovered sooner. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:19, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection of Super Bowl players BLPs[edit]

Please read and comment on my observation of extensive vandalism to Nate Kaeding's article two weeks ago, and on my request to semiprotect all the articles of players in Super Bowl XLIV for the next two weeks until a week after the game ends. Chutznik (talk) 03:46, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I read the postings this morning, and I understand your concerns. There has certainly been a lot of unacceptable edits there which reminds me of a line in an Øystein Sunde song Smi mens liket er varmt (Strike when the dead body is hot):
Pip'n ut, drit'n ut, han er bare et null,
tråkk på'n mens han ligger nede!
Det er hans skyld at ikke vi fikk gull,
han burde vært gjella på stedet.
which translates to
Boo him, throw shit on him, he is just a nothing
Step on him while he lies prone!
It's his fault we didn't win the gold.
He should have been killed on the spot!
Unfortunately, the protection policy is an area where I will need to plead cluelessness, but good luck in your efforts in resolving the issues. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:16, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "drit'n ut" = "throw shit on him"?? More like "ridicule him", hehe. Geschichte (talk) 15:39, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Or maybe "talk shit about him". :-) I really enjoy Sunde at his best, and these are wonderfully satirical lyrics. Sjakkalle (Check!) 17:30, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note[edit]

Hi Sjakkalle. You're one of the (few) admins who leave a nice explanatory note while closing AfDs. I appreciate that. Thought I'll just leave a note. Thanks. ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ ―Œ ♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣ 18:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heads up[edit]

Hi! You said: "The suggestion to merge appears to have some support, but I am a bit unsure how to do this in a neat manner". There are now templatea to put at the page which is supposed to be merged: {{Afd-mergeto}} and {{Afd-mergefrom}}. Geschichte (talk) 15:38, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have in one sense always been aware of those templates (although that I will confess that I never used them), but in this case I was a bit unsure as to whether there really was a "consensus" to merge (Starblind, who appears to be the one who put the most thought into the matter, went for an outright keep). Sjakkalle (Check!) 17:28, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An article you previously commented in is up for AFD again[edit]

Your VOTE 2 vote at CDA[edit]

Hi Sjakkalle,

you are receiving this message as you voted in VOTE 2 at the recent Community de-Adminship 'Proposal Finalization' Poll. Unfortunately, there is a hitch regarding the "none" vote that can theoretically affect all votes.

1) Background of VOTE 2:

In a working example of CDA; ater the 'discussion and polling phase' is over, if the "rule of thumb" baseline percentage for Support votes has been reached, the bureaucrats can start to decide whether to desysop an admin, based in part on the evidence of the prior debate. This 'baseline' has now been slightly-adjusted to 65% (from 70%) per VOTE 1. VOTE 2 was asking if there is a ballpark area where the community consensus is so strong, that the bureaucrats should consider desysopping 'automatically'. This 'threshold' was set at 80%, and could change pending agreement on the VOTE 2 results.

This was VOTE 2;

Do you prefer a 'desysop threshold' of 80% or 90%, or having none at all?
As a "rule of thumb", the Bureaucrats will automatically de-sysop the Administrator standing under CDA if the percentage reaches this 'threshold'. Currently it is 80% (per proposal 5.4).
Please vote "80" or "90", or "None", giving a second preference if you have one.

This is the VOTE 2 question without any ambiguity;

Do you prefer a "rule of thumb" 'auto-desysop' percentage of 80%, 90%, or "none"?
Where "none" means that there is no need for a point where the bureaucrats can automatically desysop.
Please vote "80" or "90", or "None", giving a second preference if you have one.

2) What was wrong with VOTE 2?

Since the poll, it has been suggested that ambiguity in the term "none at all" could have affected some of the votes. Consequently there has been no consensus over what percentage to settle on, or how to create a new compromise percentage. The poll results are summarised here.

3) How to help:

Directly below this querying message, please can you;

  • Clarify what you meant if you voted "none".
  • In cases where the question was genuinely misunderstood, change your initial vote if you wish to (please explain the ambiguity, and don't forget to leave a second choice if you have one).
  • Please do nothing if you interpreted the question correctly (or just confirm this if you wish), as this query cannot be a new vote.

I realise that many of you clarified your meaning after your initial vote, but the only realistic way to move forward is to be as inclusive as possible in this vote query. Sorry for the inconvenience,

Matt Lewis (talk) 14:56, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is Robert Michael Snyder notable?[edit]

SyG is getting some trouble from User:Hell in a Bucket about Robert Michael Snyder. It make helpful if you could have a discreet look at the situation. AFAIK WP:CHESS has no clear criteria for notable, but I'm not sure Snyder is notable:

  • His chess strength seem to be at best US national master, with not evidence of a open or woman IM normal nor of contested in any US Championship.
  • There is not evidence that Snyder has coaching an open or woman IM or of open or woman team that has competed in an Olympiad or similar team tourament.
  • There is no evidence of review or sales of Snyder's books.
  • Sex offenders are unfortunately so common that most are not notable.

Sorry for asking you to look at this, but you seem the best qualified to guide in this as you are a WP:CHESS member and an admin. --Philcha (talk) 18:46, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you[edit]

Your comments on the Chess opening talk page were quite helpful. Thank you!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:49, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The questions were also quite helpful because it pointed to an aspect of chess openings, namely their relation to other phases of the game, which was not fully covered in the article. :-) Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why the Hypocrisy[edit]

Why are you telling me not to use profanity in edit summaries when you are doing it yourself? Is that a coded message for heh dude, nice edit summary?--ZincBelief (talk) 17:53, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I was quoting profanity, not using it, and that is completely different. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:54, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • You were using profanity, you wrote fuck in an edit summary. By writing fuck in the edit summary you were using the word. You then told me off for using the word fuck in an edit summary, even though you had just used the word fuck yourself. In this context you doubled the proliferation of profanity in that locality and then complained to me about it. That makes zero sense to me, and as such I will just ignore any direction you give because I cannot respect your opinion. If you genuinely believed the word fuck should not be used in an edit summary, even when somebody has added something to a page that has fuck all to do with the subject matter, you would not go ahead and use it yourself. As you did use the word fuck I have to assume that you are both ok with using the word fuck and with others seeing the word fuck in an edit summary. There is not really another interpretation that makes sense to me. To argue that you can be profane so long as you slap quotation marks around words is "fuck all" sense. I think in reality you yourself realise that to be true. So why the hypocrisy? Just another standard wikipedia admin eh.--ZincBelief (talk) 12:14, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Final discussion for Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people[edit]

Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:

  1. Proposal to Close This RfC
  2. Alternate proposal to close this RFC: we don't need a whole new layer of bureaucracy

Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip 02:05, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Faith-based community[edit]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Faith-based community, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Faith-based community. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Kitfoxxe (talk) 21:16, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think my only edit there was nominating a vandal revision for speedy deletion back in 2005. I have no opinion on the current article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:02, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Tabaristan[edit]

I am writing this because user:Alefbe has no interest for [constructive] discussions, moreover we had many long discussions almost eveywhere from fa.wp to the variuos articles that he is involved as edit war with me, You may check Talk:Māzandarān Province and Talk:Mazandarani language, So talking with who doesn't consider it as constructive is just wasting of time, Furtheremore, He has been blocked for EDIT WAR not only in his current account, but also in numerous previous accounts that he had, even indefinity such as user:Behmod, user:Palm555, user:Pejman47 and many of the others --Parthava (talk) 04:17, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have looked through archives of the WP:AN and WP:SSI pages, and I cannot see that Alefbe has operated other accounts. Please show me the evidence. You say that the edit wars are the other person's fault, because the other person won't engage in constructive discussion. But I cannot see that you tried opening any discussion on the Tabaristan talkpage. What I see are two editors accusing each other of vandalism while engaging in a reverting contest. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:59, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Haunted Games[edit]

Hi and Sorry, I dont know where to send you a message so I quickly added it here for you to find. Anyway, I was wondering if you would kindly just send me the code of the Haunted Games page which you deleted on the 23rd of March 2010. Because I spent hours writing that code for my business. Thanks for your help and time —Preceding unsigned comment added by Haunted360 (talk • contribs) 11:25, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Survey on quality control policies[edit]

As part of a project funded by the European Commission (QLectives), we are collecting and analysing data to study quality control mechanisms and inclusion/deletion policies in Wikipedia. According to our records, you participated in a large number of AfD. We are currently soliciting editors with a long record of participation in AfD discussions to send us their feedback via a very informal survey.

The survey takes less than 5 minutes and is available at this URL. Should you have any questions about this project, feel free to get in touch.

Thanks for your help! --DarTar (talk) 10:29, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

Hi. Just a quick message to say thanks for your help with this. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:05, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • You're more than welcome, and thanks for bringing the matter to administrator attention! A very good example of how WP:ANI should be used. :-) Always happy to get rid of the mess editors like that leave behind. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:52, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IONA Debating Circuit[edit]

A while back you deleted the article IONA Debating Circuit. Now, I'm not here to argue for it going back up - it's a decision that's been made and I totally respect that. However, much on the information on there was accurate. I am a member of that debating circuit and I know this because I was at many of the events on their.

As such, is it still possible for you to access the article and send me the information? I am not planning on putting it up on Wikipedia but probably set up a separate website. It would helpful to both me and the IONA debating circuit as a whole.

Thanks for your help.

KingR-IX talk 13:05(GMT), 20th May 2010

is User:KingR-IX/IONA Debating Circuit still needed ? Codf1977 (talk) 11:15, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My belief is that it probably has outlived its usefulness. Barring any objections, I will delete the article in one week. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:13, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
aide memoir Codf1977 (talk) 21:32, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry that I forgot about it. The article is deleted now. Thanks for the reminder. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:06, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Double Thanks[edit]

Just wanted to say thanks for the very fair and comprehensive closure rationale you gave us over at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iceland–Mexico relations (2nd nomination). FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:59, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • You're welcome! I think we may disagree a bit on how important these particular bilateral relations are, but I wasn't really in much doubt on how to close it when I see a rough balance in arguments and suppor. Still, some summary for long and/or contentious debates is something which I usually try to provide. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:33, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
a very good close--a model of how it should be done--and also a very helpful guide in general to these articles. DGG ( talk ) 08:44, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neglected Mario Characters[edit]

As a contributor to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neglected Mario Characters, you may be interested to know I have renominated this article for deletion. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neglected Mario Characters (2nd nomination). Robofish (talk) 15:16, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that's a beautiful summary[edit]

Well done. That's all; no need to reply. Cheers. — Timneu22 · talk 15:30, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Slater[edit]

Do you know that he lied about his confrontation with a passenger about that flight, and that Salter has since refused to talk about the incident? patsw (talk) 14:21, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have read a bit about the case, and I have read articles like this one which agree with what you are saying. However, if you are referring to my "overturn and move" vote on the DRV, I am not sure how that affects the argument. I have already opined that Steven Slater should not have a biography due to BLP1E. I am sceptical about having a separate article on the incident even. Had I seen the AFD and voted in it, I would probably have voted to delete the article. However, at DRV, I am wearing a slightly different hat, where my vote is based on how I interpret the consensus of the AFD: that is, was there a consensus that an article on the incident should be deleted? In my view, the answer to that was "no". Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:29, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations[edit]

Congratulations on your PhD. Rettetast (talk) 11:26, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks! Certainly feels good to be done with that now. :-) Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:37, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My second note to you on your talk page[edit]

):) A huge thanks for the support vote :) And the comments too. I appreciated each word Sjakkalle. Warm wishes always. Wifione ....... Leave a message 19:47, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Pending changes/Straw poll on interim usage[edit]

Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:48, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jumpshot Films[edit]

For your info: the above article has been recreated, if you are interested in pursuing it further. Thanks! --Stormbay (talk) 22:23, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notification. I see that the article has been put on AFD and that there are a few more sources than in the version I deleted. I'll let the AFD run its course. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:56, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Wood[edit]

Hi, I noticed you declined my speedy deletion nomination of Joshua Wood. Could you please refer to the talk page and that of the article's original creator, where I point out a few things on regarding this article.

  • It's a recreation of an article that has been speedy deleted twice before. I only noticed this after I had nominated it.
  • Notability is established by a IMDB profile, which is identical to the originally created article and written by the same person as the article. This is circular citing. IMDB really isn't a reliable source in this regard.
  • The claims about film production are uncited and incredibly vague. Does this really count as a credible claim to notability?
  • There is evidence of attempt to 'hijack' the article and citations belonging to another Joshua Wood.
  • The article creator has a clear COI, and I wouldn't be surprised if they are not actually the afore mentioned Joshua Wood.
  • Never under-estimate aspiring actors attempts at self publicity :)

Thanks. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 17:29, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with all the points you make as to why the article should be deleted. However for a speedy deletion, there needs to be "no assertion of notability", and a mere assertion is a really weak requirement. I'll let you in on a little secret about how admins work with CSD: There are typically scores of articles in CAT:CSD, and admins are usually eager to go through them quickly, and will only make a superficial 30-second long review before deciding whether to speedy delete right there, or whether to defer the decision to the community. If there is reasonable doubt over speedy deletion, they will decline it, because speedy deleting something wrongly will upset people so much that they complain at WP:ANI, WP:RFC/U, and WP:A/R, with demands that the abusive admin be desysoped (OK, that was a bit exaggerated, but admins generally prefer caution and PROD and AFD are more cautious paths.) In the Joshua Wood case, the claims of film production, acting in some well known movies (even as an extra), and entries in some well-known databases left me feeling that there was an "assertion" of notability, even though it was weak. In those cases, I give the article a temporary reprieve so that people can have a chance to review the matter more deeply. The extra wait for a deletion which seems inevitable anyway may be a bit frustrating, but I hope you will be understanding of some of the thought processes which go on for an admin at CSD. By the way, thanks for tagging the article and notifying us. Sjakkalle (Check!) 17:51, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the prod you placed on this article as it was prodded on 8 July 2010. Compliance with policy/procedure is the only reason I did this; I have no prejudice to opening an AfD. Cheers! —KuyaBriBriTalk 20:15, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the notice, I'm sorry I dodn't check for previous PRODs. I have voted to delete on the AFD. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:03, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Deletion of Zedbazi[edit]

I was wondering why you deleted the page for the Iranian band "Zedbazi"? This group was the first of it's kind in Iran and father of Iranian Rap. You might as well delete Tupac Shakur , as he shouldn't be important either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.241.141.77 (talk) 16:39, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • The deletion was based on WP:CSD#A7, a band with no assertions of significance. From what I saw on the page, the artilce consisted of the band's members and songs, there were only claims by the band itself of being the best rap group in Iran. With no evidence of having sold any releases, or any well-known performances, the article seems to fall short of those standards. Generally, WP:MUSIC gives advice on the kind of things we look for in music bands before they are considered notable enough for Wikipedia; these criteria are more restrictive than the A7 criteria for speedy deletion, but they give a good idea of what type of material will be ultimately included. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:45, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean. However, a few months ago I believe when I visited the page such information did exist. There is a possibility that someone might have deleted it. In that case, wouldn't be more appropriate to revert the changes by any chance? Thanks for the response. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.241.141.77 (talk) 23:46, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are right that there was a version which was deleted July 7 this year. The reason for the deletion was {{db-spam}}, indicating that it was considered too promotional in tone. I believe much of that comes from quotes like this one:
"There are a few groups in Iran for which, One can say "each song is an event", but You certainly can about ZedBazi. Each time the group releases a new song, it is talked about and discussed within the Iranian Music community."
Many of the expansions by User:Zedbazihelper may have contributed to that impression, because it is from those versions that the article takes a decidedly promotional tone. I see that the (considerably shorter) versions of December 24, 2009 seem to be OK in that respect, even though there is room for improvement in the writing and language.
This issue is a bit more complicated than I thought when I deleted it, I will bring this to WP:DRV for community discussion. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:27, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And so the Zedbazi article is back online! Thanks for your note concerning this one. :-) Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:36, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

consensus on lists[edit]

I put together a short summary of the principles from the list RFC where there appears to be consensus. I wanted to invite a small number of people to look at it before figuring out a next step (whether that's to invite more people, to work on another RFC, or to scrap what I've written altogether). Take a look at User:Shooterwalker/Lists. Note the point of the summary I wrote isn't to re-open the discussion, but to ask "does this describe the RFC"? Shooterwalker (talk) 15:56, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Election RFC courtesy notice[edit]

A request for comment that may interest you is currently in progress at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/2010 ArbCom election voting procedure. If you have already participated, then please disregard this notice and my apologies. A Horse called Man 12:21, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You received this message because you participated in the earlier ArbCom secret ballot RFC.

Nomination of Stonewall Attack for deletion[edit]

A discussion has begun about whether the article Stonewall Attack, 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/Stonewall Attack 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. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:54, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy notification[edit]

Hi Sjakkalle, thanks for the great suggestions you made on the WP:NOR talk page. They have been combined into a new essay, WP:Combining Sources, which is currently linked to the main WP:NOR policy page. Hope this is okay! FeydHuxtable (talk) 12:22, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • No problem! All the stuff submitted to Wikipedia is, after all, meant to be copied and edited without mercy. :-) Glad to see my suggestions were of use. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:15, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Supercentenarians[edit]

Thanks for your AFD close. It appears I did not make clear enough that it was a nomination of two similar articles for exactly identical reasons. Could you please delete the second article, List of South American supercentenarians? (I think it would be counterproductive to relist for such a technical reason.) JJB 14:33, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the note, I missed that the second article was also on the same AFD. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:35, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you were instrumental in deleting the 'List of South American supercentenarians'. Unfortunately there were some primary source references on that page that I require for a research project. Has the deleted page been archived in some way so that I can get access to those references? 124.179.13.71 (talk) 06:21, 7 December 2010 (UTC)Chris_Amos[reply]

All the sources were from the GRG. I can list the sources in the article for you:
  1. Validated living supercentenarians
  2. GRG Deaths in 2006
  3. Verified Supercentenarian Cases
  4. GRG Deaths in 2008
  5. GRG Deaths in 2003
Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:44, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Undo before review[edit]

Greetings,

I am extremely surprised and disappointed at the below decision you made:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_African_supercentenarians

The result was delete. At "vote count" we have 5 delete vs. 3 keep (in a "normal" case with reasonable arguments on both sides this is borderlining on rough consensus), but what is compelling in this particular case is a lack of reliable sourcing for the list. It was well argued that the main source for the list, GRG, was not a reliable. The only keep voter who, to his credit, mentioned sources at all was Thecheesykid, but even he did not consider the reliability of the source. The arguments that this seems to be a regular almanac entry, and that the material is better in list form than individual articles seem rather irrelevant unless the sourcing issue is addressed. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:57, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Some MAJOR issues that need to be considered:

1. It was NOT well argued that the GRG is not a reliable source. In fact, it was decided in a 2007 ArbCom decision that the GRG is, indeed, a reliable source...and in fact, the GRG is listed in Guinness World Records, the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, etc.

http://www.grg.org/JZaslowWSJ.htm

2. JJBulten is an anti-science advocate for a political website, WorldNetDaily. He is on a "crusade" to destroy the scientific view that humans live to only about 115 years (122 max), not "950" or "969" as Noah and Methuselah are reported in the Bible.

3. This article was continent-wide in scope. It beggars belief that one would consider an entire continent not notable when it comes to longevity records. Also, given the fact that the systems of recordkeeping 100+ years ago were mostly not reliable in places like Africa, yet there were some exceptions, it makes sense to list those exceptional records cases as proof that there are, indeed, records for supercentenarians from Africa.

I will wait to see if you change your mind and re-list this for discussion. If not, I will appropriately take this to deletion review.

Ryoung122 20:18, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have reviewed the close again, and I have decided not to restore it. You are, of course, free to appeal to WP:DRV. Concerning your points, none of the AFD participants did anything to defend the reliability of GRG as a source, and the link you gave me is also from the GRG website. I could not find the ArbCom case you refer to either Your points concerning that the AFD nominator has possible political motivations behind what he is doing is not relevant either. I am in no way any friend of Creationism or its related pseudosciences (and I believe that interpreting biblical stories as an accurate and literal description of history and science is harmful to all education), but dismissing everything JJB says because he is a WND contributor is wrong. His arguments, like everyone else's, are evaluated according to the merit of the specific argument, not the political position of the person making them. Your third point, which relates to notability, is an argument which has merit only if the verifiability issues are resolved first. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:02, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 December 3#Valeri Lilov[edit]

Because you participated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Valeri Lilov (2nd nomination), you may be interested in Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 December 3#Valeri Lilov. Cunard (talk) 09:59, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for the notice, I have made a nice wishy-washy comment on the DRV. :-) Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:02, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good call on expand template[edit]

A tough call and a good one. Well done. Let's all use {{expand section}} instead so that other editors have some idea of what is to be expanded. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 15:07, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks. I fully expect to receive mixed feedback on this one, with so much participation closing something which is roughly balanced on vote count is bound to be somewhat controversial. There are several people who voted "keep" whom I have the utmost respect for, and I can understand it if they are disappointed with the decision I made here. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:20, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Disappointed" is a strong word, I'd rather say I disagree (obviously). Your close is, unfortunately, flawed, since you admit yourself that you reviewed examples and were not convinced by them. As closing admin, your job is not to judge whether someone made an argument that convinces you but where consensus lies. Also, you have said that concerns of abuse were not rebutted but several people (including myself) provided solutions for those problems that do not require deletion, yet you did not address this at all (oOn a side note, citing misuse as a reason for deletion directly conflicts with WP:TFD which says "If a template is being misused, consider clarifying its documentation to indicate the correct use, or informing those that misuse it, rather than nominating it for deletion." ). Consensus at TFD can be that the template is kept but changed to address concerns, yet you closed it as delete which I don't think reflects consensus. Many "delete" arguments were based on rationales like "use stub tags instead" or "states the obvious" and you yourself say that it's for "articles which are not stubs", yet you think those !votes are more convincing? That's conflicting logic. That said (or "ranted"), I would like to ask you to re-think your close and change it to something that reflects the consensus of the debate, i.e. "keep but change" or "no consensus". A number of people arguing for deletion have agreed that the template can be useful if changed and we should not delete something that can be made to work. Regards SoWhy 17:10, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments. I can see where you are coming from, because I did indeed make judgements of the arguments presented. There is certainly a fine line between such judgement and entering a consensus-ignoring "supervote", because both of them consist of the closer making an opinion. I am fully aware that I was treading pretty close to that line, but I think I was on the right side of it, because I started working on its close without any preconceptions, and tried very hard to follow the "keep" arguments to come up with situations where the template was useful.
A very important cornerstone in the "keep" argument was that there were several articles where the {{expand}} was needed and useful, and going through some of the examples given was necessary to determine the merit of that argument. I did my very best to be objective about those examples. Two of the examples had already replaced the template with something more specific, and two more examples were clear candidates for having the template replaced. The last one (mobile phone recycling) illustrated the concerns with the tag, rather than its benefits, as it gave no indication of what needs to be expanded, or why.
Regarding the "keep but change" option, I did mention it in the penultimate sentence: "Some of the concerns mentioned could be addressed by a different template (for example, a template a required parameter to specify what with the article needs expanding), but that would be a different template from the one being discussed here." The TFD result, if endorsed, does not forever forbid an {{expand}} template for use on top of articles, only a template which asks for expansion without saying what and why. However, the work required following a "keep but reword" result would also be very complicated, perhaps more so than the "delete this template, then create a new reworded template which is used in a much more restricted manner" option. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:54, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thought I'd weigh in as well. I thought your rationale was very well-considered and well-thought-out. I support your decision, and I'm glad that you considered the merit behind the arguments and not just the !vote count. I'll be interested to see how it fares at DRV. Although I didn't !vote on the TfD (I didn't know it was happening... ><), I did give an opinion at DRV. — GorillaWarfare talk 02:21, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Review instructions for Template:Expand[edit]

I've placed draft review instructions in the holding cell for Template:Expand. Your comments at Wikipedia talk:Templates for discussion#Review instructions for Expand are particularly welcome. Regards. --Bsherr (talk) 16:22, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DRV Notice: Deletion review for Template:Expand[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Template:Expand. 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. BarkingFish 00:46, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • OK, thanks for the notice. I'll weigh in if there are comments which need answering, but I generally follow a (self-imposed) policy of not voting to endorse my own actions. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:06, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Admin's Barnstar
For daring to even consider closing the expand tag TFD, and for providing an excellent, well reasoned and thorough rationale. Whatever happens at DRV, even taking on a task like that deserves recognition. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:28, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the barnstar! I have only made one comment on the DRV, but I am reading the proceedings and comments there with interest. Some of the overturn comments are well reasoned, for example one of the "overturn" voters, AndrewRT, wrote well on a concern which I sympathize with, although I ultimately disagree with his conclusion:
"My other concern, however, is just as strong: this decision will end up increasing the power of Admins, who will inevitably move away from a role of implementing community consensus and towards a role of arbitrating discussions. That, I believe, is a negative trend that would extend the power structures on Wikipedia and move us away from the flat structured community that has been the foundation of our success."
This is a sensitive area: how do you distinguish between "careful weighing of the arguments" and "dictatorial supervotes"? The rationale on the TFD, with an analysis of several of the arguments presented, was an attempt to demonstrate that I was doing the former rather than the latter. Still, I have learned a few lessons from reading the DRV debate, and there are things I would have written differently in the closing rationale (for instance, I would have given some more explanation on why I did not close it as a "keep but rephrase"). I cannot say I regret the deletion outcome, because I felt, and still feel, that the concerns over the template's vagueness and lack of beneficial effects were not adequately addressed by the keep vote. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:58, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sjakkalle/2010&oldid=1143310069"