| Revision as of 06:01, 25 November 2011 editSpartaz (talk | contribs)Administrators52,776 edits →inre Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Prosper Masquelier: cmt← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 21:23, 3 January 2025 edit undoWwew345t (talk | contribs)312 edits →Sophie clarke: new sectionTag: New topic | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{User:Spartaz/Blah}}{{Archive basics | |||
| |archive = User talk:Spartaz/Archive%(counter)d | |||
| |counter = 26 | |||
| }} | |||
| Declaration: I recently logged into my daughter's account to upload and post some images to her sandbox for her university course. For privacy reasons I will not be publicly disclosing her account but will do so privately to any admin in good standing. This was a one time thing and there is no intention for me to edit further using her account. By the way uploading images on mobile is needlessly difficult event for a user who has been around since 2006.... ] <sup>'']''</sup> 15:55, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| {{-}} | |||
| == Restore for updating == | |||
| ==]== | |||
| Heyy! Can you please restore ] page in my personal space, so I could continue improving it until it's ready to be published again? Thanks! --] (]) 16:00, 25 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
| == New Page Patrol survey == | |||
| Good Afternoon, Can you please userfy the deleted article for me? | |||
| {| style="background-color: #dfeff3; border: 4px solid #bddff2; width:100%" cellpadding="5" | |||
| | ] | |||
| <big>'''New page patrol – ''Survey Invitation'''''</big> | |||
| ---- | |||
| Hello Spartaz! The ] is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. | |||
| * If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only. | |||
| * If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. | |||
| '''Please click to take part.'''<br> | |||
| Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. | |||
| ---- | |||
| <small>You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see ]. ] 13:23, 26 October 2011 (UTC)</small> | |||
| |} | |||
| <!-- EdwardsBot 0122 --> | |||
| https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jorge_Gracie_(2nd_nomination) | |||
| == important == | |||
| ] (]) 20:04, 25 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ''List of important publications in sociology – recreation of a new article from scratch permitted There is a clear consensus that we can have such an article but no real refutation of the deletion reason - removing original research. – Spartaz Humbug! 03:53, 29 October 2011 (UTC)'' | |||
| :It wasn't original research. The closing administrator for that AFD stated he felt that the word "important" made it original research, while most everyone else said otherwise. So saying that it should stay deleted because the word "important" equals original research, then saying you can recreate it with the word "important" still in the title, seems impossible. The article clearly defined its requirements for inclusion. This same argument was done in a dozen or so other articles that listed important publications for various things, and had the word ''important'' in the title, consensus being an overwhelming keep for almost all of them. You could rename the article to be ], since that is the inclusion criteria, but its rather long. So the word important was determined to be fine instead. ] 04:42, 29 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::Of course its original research if you haven't got a clear scope to define important. That's been a long standing given as long as I have been closing AFDs. Just recreate the article and sort your scope out. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 05:12, 29 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::It had a scope clearly defined at the top of the article, it the same one all the other articles had. | |||
| == Deletion review for ] == | |||
| :This is a list of important publications in sociology, organized by field. | |||
| As requested: an editor has asked for ] of ]. 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. ] ] 22:38, 18 November 2023 (UTC) | |||
| == ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message == | |||
| :Some reasons why a particular publication might be regarded as important: | |||
| <div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #AAA; background-color: ivory; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; "> | |||
| :Topic creator – A publication that created a new topic | |||
| <div class="ivmbox-image" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em; flex: 1 0 40px; max-width: 100px">]</div> | |||
| :Breakthrough – A publication that changed scientific knowledge significantly | |||
| <div class="ivmbox-text"> | |||
| :Introduction – A publication that is a good introduction or survey of a topic | |||
| Hello! Voting in the ''']''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2023|end}}-1 day}}. All ''']''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. | |||
| :Influence – A publication which has significantly influenced the world | |||
| :Latest and greatest – The current most advanced result in a topic | |||
| :::Isn't that clear enough? ] 05:29, 29 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The point is "says who?" Who says they created a new topic, who says they changed scientific knowledge significantly, who says the publication is a good introduction or survey to a topic, who says the publication has significantly influenced the world, who says the current most advanced result on a topic. Clue is the answer if you and some random guy then its OR. Also, who decided that these are definitional of important topics in the field? Scopes in important topics need to come from an independent evaluation not made up on the talk page. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 05:40, 29 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Reliable sources such as media coverage and especially university level textbooks says who. ] 10:38, 29 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::So write yourself a scope that references the standard for media coverage or the university level textbook and knock yourself out recreating the topic with this as your reference. Have fun :-) ] <sup>'']''</sup> 10:41, 29 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
| The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the ]. 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 ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. | |||
| == ] == | |||
| If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review ] and submit your choices on the ''']'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>] (]) 00:29, 28 November 2023 (UTC)</small> | |||
| Please place ] in my userspace or the article incubator. I have added several sources to it and I intend to continue to improve it until others think it deserves inclusion. ] (]) 06:57, 4 November 2011 (UTC) | |||
| *Only if you undertake not to restore it to mainspace unless the draft has been approved by DRV. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 06:59, 4 November 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::Where on ] is DRV mentioned? ] (]) 07:09, 4 November 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::Its not. No reason why it should be. DRV has precedence and as closing admin to the DRV I'm telling you that the page can't be restored until after DRV has endorsed the draft, If you accept that I'll be happy to userfy the page... ] <sup>'']''</sup> 07:22, 4 November 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Okay, my plan is to move it to the ], mark it for pending assessment, take it off my watch list, and never look at it again. ] (]) 07:55, 4 November 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Excellent plan. I'm going to move it back to the incubator myself shortly with a header note about DRV but first I'm looking into the dispute between you and amadscientist. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 07:57, 4 November 2011 (UTC) | |||
| </div> | |||
| == BLP issue == | |||
| </div> | |||
| <!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2023/Coordination/MM/02&oldid=1187132049 --> | |||
| == Nomination of ] for deletion == | |||
| <div class="afd-notice"> | |||
| <div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">]</div>A discussion is taking place as to whether the article ] is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to ] or whether it should be ]. | |||
| The article will be discussed at ''']''' until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines. | |||
| If an editor makes a claim on the article itself with no references it is contentious, regardless of the fact that they claim to be that person. The continued use of this material by Dualus is a clear BLP issue. Thank you.--] (]) 08:02, 4 November 2011 (UTC) | |||
| *Please keep discussion to the article talk page and try being specific as to how this violates BLP. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 08:04, 4 November 2011 (UTC) | |||
| Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.<!-- Template:Afd notice --></div> ] ] 15:24, 26 December 2023 (UTC) | |||
| == Romsey Town Rollerbillies == | |||
| == "]" listed at ] == | |||
| ] | |||
| The redirect <span class="plainlinks"></span> has been listed at ] to determine whether its use and function meets the ]. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at '''{{slink|Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 January 4#2014 Chula Vista mayoral election}}''' until a consensus is reached. <!-- Template:RFDNote --> <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; padding:2px;">]]</span>🏳️⚧ 01:36, 4 January 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == "]" listed at ] == | |||
| ] | |||
| The redirect <span class="plainlinks"></span> has been listed at ] to determine whether its use and function meets the ]. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at '''{{slink|Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 January 4#2018 Chula Vista mayoral election}}''' until a consensus is reached. <!-- Template:RFDNote --> <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; padding:2px;">]]</span>🏳️⚧ 01:37, 4 January 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == PAR Technology Deletion Review == | |||
| To recap, here's a potential scenario where slavish adherence to policy could result in a bad outcome: | |||
| Hi there! For full disclosure upfront, I'm a PAR employee. I submitted a brief write up requesting for a review of PAR Technology's page deletion from a few years ago. I have detailed reasoning based on new information here: https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2024_June_13 | |||
| # Confused newbie posts an inappropriate promotional article on an (apparently) non-notable roller derby club | |||
| # The article is nominated at AFD, where it is deleted | |||
| # Confused newbie complains to a bunch of people about it | |||
| # Experienced editors explain the relevant policies and suggest that the article could be improved at the ] | |||
| # Newbie takes their advice and works on the article to bring it into line with the policies. After some effort he feels the concerns raised at the AFD have been addressed. | |||
| # DRV however endorses the original close since the closing administrator correctly interpreted the discussion. | |||
| # The newbie moves the improved article into mainspace, where it is deleted due to the previous AFD. But that AFD and the subsequent DRV were both about the original version, not the substantially improved new version. | |||
| Can you please have a look and let me know if this is something we can discuss? Many thanks! ] (]) 13:57, 14 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *That's because our policies and practices are kafkaesque. I looked over the sources presented at the end of the DRV before closing it. The best source was in the AFD and wasn't accepted as good enough and most of the rest of the sourcing wasn't anywhere close to detailed or meeting RS. If I had thought the sourcing was good enough then I wouldn't have closed it. As far as I can see, the incubated article was available for consideration throughout the DRV and many of thise commenting were regulars who are not frightened to overturn a valid AFD close based on new sourcing. I can't see that I could have closed the DRV differently and moving a draft into mainspace immediately afterwards is .. well .. going to lead to trouble. There is nothing to stop the user from asking the draft to be considered at DRV for restoration. If the consensus is that its good enough then it will be restored. Its entirely possible that the agressive and bludgening responses to DRV comments lost the nominator any possible sympathies from those wavering over the close but truthfully, we can only close by what we have. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 17:56, 4 November 2011 (UTC) | |||
| *:I see that your understanding of policy leads you to believe that your hands are tied here. As it happens, I don't think policy actually obligates you to this view; I would think that if an AFD closes to delete it should not preclude re-creation if the new revision addressed the concerns raised at AFD. But aside from that, even if policy does seem to prescribe salting, you have an ] up your sleeve that allows you to do the right thing here, whatever ''you'' think that is in this particular situation. For my part, I'm not judging that the revised article is improved enough to be re-instated over the AFD: but I do think that "the AFD (on the old revision) closed as delete, the DRV (on the old revision) closed as delete, so you can't recreate this article no matter how much you improve it, even though we told you that you could" is a very bad reason to salt an article, and it is exactly the kind of ridiculousness that ] is there to help us avoid. With that said I'll leave it to your judgment. Regards, ] (]) 20:02, 4 November 2011 (UTC) | |||
| *::Thank you. I would say that IAR in deletion discussions has never worked and always leads to more drama than light. I do feel that the article as it stands has been rejected and letting another AFD and possibly a DRV run for 7-14 days would be much more disheartening for a new user then a clean break and a clear outcome. If it gets further improved nothing to stop a new DRV allowing recreation. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 04:37, 5 November 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :== Deletion review for ] == | |||
| I disagree with the recap. I'd say it goes something like this: | |||
| An editor has asked for ] of ]. 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.<!-- Template:DRV notice --> ] (]) 13:58, 14 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| # Editor on Misplaced Pages since June joins a mailing list dedicated to addressing Misplaced Pages's gendergap problem. They see a request for participation on a roller derby article deletion because of a fear of setting precedent. They see another post suggesting people work on local articles. | |||
| :https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=PAR_Technology&action=edit&redlink=1 ] (]) 13:58, 14 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| # After the deletion request was posted and never having participated, after having not participated in the subsequent discussion about what a notable roller derby is, the editor who has been participating since June and who was currently involved in a highly contenious editing situation on ] ask ] to restore the deleted article to his user space. | |||
| # User does minor fixes that fail to address the substantive points of the ] in a way that would make it clear that the article is NOW notable, having adequately addressed the problem. These fixes are either on Incubator or on Userspace. | |||
| # User seeks support from regular roller derby contributors, but ends up alienating them instead because of rambling, off message comments that may or may not have linked roller derby to female on male domestic violence, and to pornography. In any case, the roller derby editors active on ], getting roller derby articles to ], participating in the notability discussion for the sport aren't supporting him. | |||
| # User moves article to main space or is user sets a redirect from main space to article incubator. Not entirely certain. (Am certain something in main space was deleted.) | |||
| # User goes to deletion review. User is repeatedly told no, the incubator article has not been improved enough but ]. It is pointed out the European inclusion does not count as international because skaters from the league, NOT THE LEAGUE OR AN ALL STAR LEAGUE, competed, and the league has not competed in any notable bouts at the highest levels. User is told the sources used in the incubator version have not been substantially improved and do not help it meet ]. User is told this in two different rooms on IRC when seeking help. | |||
| # User causes disruption on other articles by inserting non-free images on unrelated articles. User is told this is not appropriate and on IRC, where he is told this is a blockable offense. On IRC, user encourages another user to take similar action to get her non-free images on Misplaced Pages. | |||
| # User adds red links to the article on articles to help bolster the article. (These are removed and conspiracies are alleged that this was only done in regards to the article he was working on.) | |||
| # User nominates article for a peer review citing "I've listed this article for peer review because it has recently been through a contentious deletion, deletion review, incubation, further editing by an uninvolved editor, and nomination for speedy deletion. I would like other perspectives on whether the sources provide enough depth." | |||
| # User goes to IRC, complains about users with such gems as "Why isn't she supporting the article? It is feminist!" (in regards to another topic) and finds a sympathetic editor. User apparently fails to tell sympathetic editor the article had been denied recreation on Deletion Review. | |||
| # Sympathetic editor moves article over. User SHOULD at this point know the article will be nominated for deletion. They failed to garner support from existing roller derby editors. There was consensus on the Deletion review the article should be kept deleted. | |||
| # Article is subsequently nominated for a procedural AfD. It gets three delete votes based on the same criteria that the article was voted for deletion. The two keep votes are from user and sympathetic editor who moved it to main space. | |||
| # Concurrently, user is before at least one ANI for disruptive editing for violating ] related to other activities on wiki. | |||
| == Invitation to participate in a research == | |||
| The important parts: He should have known he lacked consensus and the votes that did not support recreation were '''based on the incubator version, NOT the original, deleted version.''' --] (]) 10:36, 5 November 2011 (UTC) | |||
| Hello, | |||
| :Thanks for the more detailed narrative. But if the DRV was considering the 'improved' (depending on whom you ask, apparently) version, then that's all we need to consider and the issue is settled. Regards, ] (]) 16:35, 7 November 2011 (UTC) | |||
| The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Misplaced Pages, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this ''''''. | |||
| == Zia McCabe no consensus == | |||
| You do not have to be an Administrator to participate. | |||
| ====]==== | |||
| :{{DRV links|Zia McCabe|xfd_page=Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Zia McCabe|article=}} | |||
| how is it possible you see a no consensus in ]? I see a "Delete" nomination by Lachlanusername (''"no notable articles about her independent of The Dandy Warhols"''), three "Merge and Redirect" (with ]) votes (for the lack of significant coverage of her independently from Dandy Warhols) and just ONE "Keep" vote with a poor argument... ''"she might be only famous as a member of a band but she's received fairly substantial independent coverage"'', not indicating at least one reliable source of this ''"fairly substantial independent coverage"'' that concerns her and not the Dandy Warhols ... ] (]) 09:47, 6 November 2011 (UTC) | |||
| *The trouble is that the discussion was relisted twice before, which means that the reviewer didn't see a consensus and there has been no comment whatsoever in the last two weeks. A further relist is clearly pointless and how can I possibly find a consensus there if two other reviewers have failed to do so? Potentially an issue with a NAC relist but once Sandstein relisted I'm stuck to find any other outcome then NC without any addition to the discussion. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 12:30, 6 November 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::Ok, thanks for the clarification... bizarre, bureaucratic but absolutely correct and however not your fault--] (]) 14:45, 6 November 2011 (UTC) | |||
| The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its ] and view its ] . | |||
| == Closing like a boss == | |||
| Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns. | |||
| Stuff like makes my heart swell. I guess that AFD's super-closed now? :P ] 05:40, 7 November 2011 (UTC) | |||
| Kind Regards, | |||
| == cameron dollar == | |||
| ] | |||
| hello, can you please explain why you deleted the cameron dollar (fighter) page. i am unsure why it got deleted and am just curious. thanks. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 20:09, 7 November 2011 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| *see ]. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 03:33, 8 November 2011 (UTC) | |||
| <bdi lang="en" dir="ltr">] (]) 19:22, 23 October 2024 (UTC) </bdi> | |||
| == Stdlib.h close rationale == | |||
| <!-- Message sent by User:UOzurumba (WMF)@metawiki using the list at https://meta.wikimedia.org/search/?title=UOzurumba_(WMF)/sandbox_Research_announcement_list_for_enwiki_Current_Admins&oldid=27650221 --> | |||
| == Reminder to participate in Misplaced Pages research == | |||
| Thanks for closing ]. I support the outcome but question your rationale. I understand the issue like this: there is nothing encyclopedic to say about Stdlib.h, so an article isn't justified. Stdlib.h is a subtopic of ], so the article would be a ], not a fork. | |||
| Hello, | |||
| I think we're likely to refer to this Afd when discussing some of the other problematic articles in this area, so I'd like to ask you to take another look and consider modifying the rationale. --] (]) 04:51, 8 November 2011 (UTC) | |||
| *I'm not sure this is a great precedent for a series of XFDs. I chose CFORK because of ''Content forks that are created unintentionally result in redundant or conflicting articles and are to be avoided''. SPINOFF is to the same guideline so I don't see the point of the change. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 04:54, 8 November 2011 (UTC) | |||
| I recently invited you to take a survey about administration on Misplaced Pages. If you haven’t yet had a chance, there is still time to participate– we’d truly appreciate your feedback. The survey is anonymous and should take about 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its ] and view its ]. | |||
| == Bubble Babble - could a copy be made available to me for merging with other pages? == | |||
| Take the survey ''''''. | |||
| Hi. I had proposed merging Bubble Babble with other pages, and had thought we'd have a bit more time to do so - I hadn't gotten any responses back either way from the cryptography people (possibly aside from the one guy who didn't even fully read the article before deciding it was "snake oil"). BTW, what are "spa" votes? And my vote was for keeping it, if that wasn't clear. (Incidentally, it isn't "my" page - nobody owns a page on Misplaced Pages, as I recall. I simply found the thing interesting.) BTW, yes, I've checked the Wayback machine - its last copy is from 2008. ] (]) 05:47, 8 November 2011 (UTC) | |||
| Kind Regards, | |||
| :I've put in a request at the "undeletion" page also, specifying that it was not for a full undeletion but for a copy of the page moved into my userspace or alternatively emailed to me for working on merging it. ] (]) 06:00, 8 November 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::Actually no, there are no reliable sources for this material so you may not merge it into any other article without a) breaking our attributation policy and b) it would be original research and therefore not verifiable to a RS. Sorry. ] explains the term. In the context I'm referring to inexperienced editors, IPs and non-policy based arguments. Its a short of AFD shorthand but I'll clarify my meaning in the rational. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 08:13, 8 November 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::Why is its usage in a well-known piece of software not a reliable source? (And if I were to follow the above policy, I'd start deleting things wholescale in various articles instead of being polite and tagging them with "citation needed".) And I'm certainly not a single-purpose account, nor an IP-based account; inexperienced, yes, but that's neither of those. (BTW, you're succeeding at discouraging me from making contributions to Misplaced Pages - ones that are certainly backed up with reliable sources, even by your standards. I suggest doing a bit better job of ].) ] (]) 15:07, 8 November 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Not ignoring this but RL has claimed me for the moment. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 04:07, 10 November 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Allens, I'm sorry you feel that way but enforcing community agreed standards on article inclusion is not biting. The issue was finding reliable sources that discussed the subject in detail. Well known {{whom}} {{fact}} is subjective and isn't what we judge inclusion on. Look at ] for the best explanation of our basic standard. I'm sorry but the discussion rejected the merge option in favour of deletion so you can't just go ahead and merge it anyway because that isn't how it works on a collaborative project. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 06:12, 12 November 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ] | |||
| == ] == | |||
| <bdi lang="en" dir="ltr">] (]) 00:18, 13 November 2024 (UTC) </bdi> | |||
| Hi Spartaz | |||
| <!-- Message sent by User:UOzurumba (WMF)@metawiki using the list at https://meta.wikimedia.org/search/?title=UOzurumba_(WMF)/sandbox_Research_announcement_list_for_enwiki_Current_Admins_(reminders)&oldid=27744339 --> | |||
| == ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message == | |||
| Wondering if you'd intended to comment on or take any action on the other article nominated for deletion at the above-captioned AfD discussion. | |||
| <div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; background-color: #fdf2d5; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; "> | |||
| Thank you, <sup><small><font color="green">]</font></small></sup><sub style="margin-left:-4.2ex;"><small><font color="blue">]</font></small></sub> 07:13, 8 November 2011 (UTC) | |||
| <div class="ivmbox-image noresize" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;">]</div> | |||
| *Missed it and fixed it! ] <sup>'']''</sup> 07:59, 8 November 2011 (UTC) | |||
| <div class="ivmbox-text"> | |||
| Hello! Voting in the ''']''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2024|end}}-1 day}}. All ''']''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. | |||
| The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the ]. 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 ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. | |||
| == Keep == | |||
| If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review ] and submit your choices on the ''']'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>] (]) 00:15, 19 November 2024 (UTC)</small> | |||
| * - ] - Hi, could you please expand on you Keep close rationale for this AFD please. ] (]) 11:20, 8 November 2011 (UTC) | |||
| </div> | |||
| If you are not going to expand do you have an objection to my sending the AFD for Deletion reviewing the close? ] (]) 20:53, 9 November 2011 (UTC) | |||
| </div> | |||
| *I have been busy with real life and haven't had time to do this. I never object to anyone going to DRV but it might be more constructive if you told me what your beef with the close is. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 04:06, 10 November 2011 (UTC) | |||
| <!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2024/Coordination/MM/02&oldid=1258243447 --> | |||
| *I looked at the AFD again. After Ron Ritzman relisted the discussion the commentary was all keep and mentioned references that were not rebutted. I this case, Ron clearly couldn't find a consensus otherwise they wouldn't have relisted and after that there was only one way traffic. I can't see that I had any choice to close other then keep. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 06:07, 12 November 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == Sophie clarke == | |||
| == questioning why you deleted an article about elections in an area == | |||
| I was told to come to the deleteing admin i would like to express my concern that the nominater of said page is extremely biased againt pages like this these pages have been considered notable for years and there were onlyn2 particpents in the afd including the nominator who i feel is biased ] (]) 21:23, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| You closed the AFD ] with delete. I was wondering why. There are hordes of other articles just like it, as I mention in the group AFD for many identical articles. ]. You didn't provide any reason for your closure. Is this election less notable than others for any reason? ] 15:29, 10 November 2011 (UTC) | |||
| *Thanks for the heads up on this. I think we need an overarching discussion to reach a meta consensus rather than doing this a county at a time. The issue is whether a county is a sensible region around which to build election results articles. To do that we need reliable sources that discuss the subject of election results by county X. Without this the articles fail the GNG and are OR and SYNTH with a dash of INDISCRIMINATE thrown in... I have expressed that view in the AFD. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 05:40, 12 November 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == Thanks. He jumped the gun. == | |||
| {{Tb|MichaelQSchmidt|The Lone Ranger}} | |||
| {{Tb|MichaelQSchmidt|Time for another RFA?}} | |||
| == post made at the time of the DRV close and related issues == | |||
| An administrator has issued me a warning on my talk page because of an edit at which you closed. As you may recall, administrator Bushranger participated in ], I identified his !vote as ] during the DRV, and his !vote was not defended by any of the participants at the DRV. Please consider removing the template part of the edit on my talk page. Are you willing to help in dispute resolution with administrator Bushranger and User:Ahunt? ] (]) 05:31, 15 November 2011 (UTC) | |||
| *Honestly? I can't avoid the conclusion that Bushranger's actions were reasonable. You can't say you didn't know about the policy about not commenting on closed AFDs when you were recently hauled over the coals for just that. Sorry, but if I intervene its not going to be on your side. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 19:20, 15 November 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == PRESS PLAY ON TAPE deletion == | |||
| I just tried to look up more information on the band PRESS PLAY ON TAPE and found that you deleted this page. I've read the deletion discussion and cannot figure out why the page was deleted. This question needs to be revisited. PRESS PLAY ON TAPE is a well known band that's been active for many years. I came to learn about the band from mainstream press here in Sweden and cannot understand why there wouldn't be a Misplaced Pages article. The band frequently does public appearances and have released several albums. Removing articles like this in the interest of the public is Misplaced Pages administrators at their worst. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 20:02, 18 November 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| *The discussion which led to the deletion is at ]. You need to demonstrate decent reliable sourcing such as described at ] to show that this band meets our inclusion standard. If you can do that, I would be happy to restore the article. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 04:12, 19 November 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ==Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Ryan Shamrock (fighter)== | |||
| I would like to start off by saying that I do not intend to be rude to you, if I do say something that does offend you, then I apologise in advance as I want your help on this. | |||
| Now I don't want all the pages to be reinstated, but just ]. There are several reasons to why Alan should not have been deleted, one reason being that he was the very first ] World Featherweight Champion, which is already very significant, and there are many sources out there which will talk about this. | |||
| In case you don't know them, ] is the biggest MMA Promotion in Europe and is getting more and more recognised by the United States with each event. They have signed talent such as ], ] and ]. If you look at the criteria supporting notability on ], BAMMA meets all of them, which means they are a notable organisation, which means Omer was the first to win a major title for a notable promotion in that particular division, which should mean that he is also notable. He has fought with this promotion twice, but because he was their first featherweight champion, he meets at least one criteria for notability. | |||
| I have looked up information on this guy, and there is some interesting information on him. The 'Bloody Elbow' website has an article on him, which has him ranked as the forth biggest prospect in his division in the world. There is also a 'Prospect Watch' on him by ], which despite being a few years old, it is still a major article on him. | |||
| There are also articles on him that are in German and Polish which talks about his wrestling training and fights in Poland, but I think there is a policy in ] that says different languages doesn't matter, as long as they translatable, which can obviously been done through Google Translate, and notable articles. Because of this paragraph and the one above, I'd say that these articles (which can all be found on Google news search as '"Alan Omer"') meets ], in which he meets the very first criteria for fighters in ]. | |||
| Because of all this I say that Omer is notable, and I would him reinstated with you help please. Thank You for your time to read this. BigzMMA 10:25, 21 November 2011 (UTC) <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| *I'm sorry but I wasn't seeing a consensus for that article at ] but it wasn't clear cut either. I'm happy to review but we need sources. Please read ] and let me know the best 2 - 3 sources you have and I will look. Foreign language sources are permitted. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 11:28, 21 November 2011 (UTC) | |||
| **Thank you very much, I will add in the links just below this and say what it is exactly - | |||
| # http://www.sherdog.com/news/articles/Sherdog-Prospect-Watch-Alan-Omer-17130 - Sherdog article, headlined as 'Sherdog Prospect Watch: Alan Omer.' | |||
| This article meets ] guidelines "Significant coverage" as it address the subject directly in detail, "Reliable" as it is a verifiable evaluation of notability, per the ], and "Sources" as the number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources and multiple sources are generally expected. See below's link for evidence of this. | |||
| # http://www.bloodyelbow.com/2011/2/12/1989095/world-mma-featherweight-scouting-report-4-alan-omer - Bloody Elbows article, headlined as 'World MMA Featherweight Scouting Report: #4 - Alan Omer' | |||
| This article meets the same ] guidelines as the link above, however, they are both different as where the top link talks about Omer's background, this article breaks down Omer's whole fighting style, and ranks him amongst the other prospects in Europe. | |||
| # http://www.mmauniverse.com/events/reports/bamma-2-event-report-by-julian-radbourne - Article, goes into full detail about each fight result on the ] card. | |||
| This article meets ] guidelines "Significant coverage", as it is shows all of the ] fight results, which has other sources covering the event as well, "Reliable" as the website covering the results is independent from ] and again it is widely available in other sites covering the event, "Sources" as it is a secondary source (not produced by BAMMA or their parent company), "Independent of the subject" as I already mentioned it wasn't produced by BAMMA or their parent company. | |||
| *Your last edit removed a comment by me referencing the GNG and RS and asking you to explain how the sources met RS. Please cut this down to the best 2-3 sources you have and explain how the source meets GNG & RS. If you can't be bothered to properly evaluate the sources, why should I? Also please bear in mind that blogs, fan sites and websites that do not have robust fact checking and peer review are not reliable sources and that detailed coverage means precisely that and that mentions aren't going to help. Thank you ] <sup>'']''</sup> 01:08, 22 November 2011 (UTC) | |||
| * I do apologise, I have now just left the best 3 on here and I have given a short paragraph to each to say which GNG guidelines they should meet, so now it should be made easier to go through. BigzMMA 09:32, 22 November 2011 (UTC) | |||
| What is your opinion of this now ]? Does it meet ]? ] (]) 15:59, 24 November 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == inre ] == | |||
| I take your closing summary as a huge compliment, and thank you. Exploring the fr.Misplaced Pages was an education as, like many, I had previously asssumed that other Wikipedias were pretty much ''just like us''. Wow, what an eye-opener. From now on, whenever I see a nomination based upon "]", I'll be sure to visit that non-English one and educate myself on the differences between them and us. This is an inspration for a new essay... ], to explain that we do here is not to be based upon what others do elsewhere by different sets of rules. Off-hand, might you be able to advise if there is another Misplaced Pages that more organized in defining inclusion critera than are we? As it seems to me that the others seem far less organized. ''']''' '']'' 19:48, 24 November 2011 (UTC) | |||
| *You are welcome. Try the German and Swedish wikipedias for strict inclusion criteria and very firm governance... I like the idea of the essay. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 06:01, 25 November 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == Question + Request == | |||
| I Master of Puppets about this (as the original deleting admin), but he's been gone since the 12th, so I though I'd ask you instead. | |||
| I see you recently deleted ] | |||
| a. Can I create a redirect to ], where it is mentioned? | |||
| b. Can you let me see a copy of the article, preferably by userfying it to my userspace or, less ideally, by e-mailing me a copy? | |||
| Thank You. ] (]) 02:25, 25 November 2011 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 21:23, 3 January 2025
 Archives |
|
Archive 1 * Archive 2 * Archive 3 * Archive 4 * Archive 5 * Archive 6 * Archive 7 * Archive 8 * Archive 9 * Archive 10 * Archive 11 * Archive 12 * Archive 13 * Archive 14 * Archive 15 * Archive 16 * Archive 17 * Archive 18 * Archive 19 * Archive 20 * Archive 21 * Archive 22 * Archive 23 * Archive 24 * Archive 25 * Archive 26 * Archive 27 |
Spartaz (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
I'm a long term user (first edit 2006) and have been an admin on or off since 2007. When we first started there was so much idealism and we really had no strong policies about inclusion except a desire to have some level of sourcing. As time moved on we became more structured and around the time I became an admin in 2007 we were grappling with the concept of collapsing non notable articles into lists which I was at the forefront of as a regular afd closer and constant presence at DRV. I had a lot of patience once and for that reason was regular DRV closer for a long time after GR Berry left the project. Sadly, my patience was degraded over time and getting involved in the PORNBIO wars pretty much washed out a lot of the good faith that policy and courtesy quite rightly requires us to show. This was again a major change in our approach to content and one of the first SNGs that was deprecated in favour of a more rigid approach to proper sourcing. Since then our content in this area has become much better and we are seeing similar struggles now in the sports arena where SNGs are slowly giving way to GNG level standards.
I have always taken a very legalistic approach to closing discussions that I recognise does not fit well to the current community standard, where low participation level allowing more brigading of votes or allowing more non-policy based arguments. For this reason I'm not really closing discussions but will still happily review old closes. Otherwise I mostly review and nominate unsuitable content as a BLP is a serious matter and needs to be properly sourced.
i am willing to userfy deleted articles for improvement as long as there is a reasonable likelihood that they can be saved. If you are challenging a deletion, do you have three good sources?
Useful Links:
- Please don't leave talkback templates as I always watchlist pages when I edit and I'm perfectly capable of looking for a reply myself.
Declaration: I recently logged into my daughter's account to upload and post some images to her sandbox for her university course. For privacy reasons I will not be publicly disclosing her account but will do so privately to any admin in good standing. This was a one time thing and there is no intention for me to edit further using her account. By the way uploading images on mobile is needlessly difficult event for a user who has been around since 2006.... Spartaz 15:55, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Restore for updating
Heyy! Can you please restore Masha Danilova page in my personal space, so I could continue improving it until it's ready to be published again? Thanks! --Oleh325 (talk) 16:00, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
Good Afternoon, Can you please userfy the deleted article for me?
https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jorge_Gracie_(2nd_nomination)
BlackAmerican (talk) 20:04, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
Deletion review for Alex Zhavoronkov
As requested: an editor has asked for a deletion review of Alex Zhavoronkov. 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. BD2412 T 22:38, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages 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 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:29, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Nomination of The Gruffalo's Child for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Gruffalo's Child is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/The Gruffalo's Child until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.BD2412 T 15:24, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
"2014 Chula Vista mayoral election" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect 2014 Chula Vista mayoral election has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 January 4 § 2014 Chula Vista mayoral election until a consensus is reached. Isla🏳️⚧ 01:36, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
"2018 Chula Vista mayoral election" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect 2018 Chula Vista mayoral election has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 January 4 § 2018 Chula Vista mayoral election until a consensus is reached. Isla🏳️⚧ 01:37, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
PAR Technology Deletion Review
Hi there! For full disclosure upfront, I'm a PAR employee. I submitted a brief write up requesting for a review of PAR Technology's page deletion from a few years ago. I have detailed reasoning based on new information here: https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2024_June_13
Can you please have a look and let me know if this is something we can discuss? Many thanks! LeLiPAR (talk) 13:57, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- == Deletion review for PAGE NAME ==
An editor has asked for a deletion review of PAGE NAME. 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. LeLiPAR (talk) 13:58, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=PAR_Technology&action=edit&redlink=1 LeLiPAR (talk) 13:58, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
Invitation to participate in a research
Hello,
The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Misplaced Pages, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.
You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.
The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .
Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.
Kind Regards,
BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:22, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
Reminder to participate in Misplaced Pages research
Hello,
I recently invited you to take a survey about administration on Misplaced Pages. If you haven’t yet had a chance, there is still time to participate– we’d truly appreciate your feedback. The survey is anonymous and should take about 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement.
Take the survey here.
Kind Regards,
BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 00:18, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages 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 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:15, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
Sophie clarke
I was told to come to the deleteing admin i would like to express my concern that the nominater of said page is extremely biased againt pages like this these pages have been considered notable for years and there were onlyn2 particpents in the afd including the nominator who i feel is biased Wwew345t (talk) 21:23, 3 January 2025 (UTC)