Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:57, 7 February 2008

Desk This user is an administrator on the English Misplaced Pages. (verify) en This user is a native speaker of the English language. ru-2 Этот участник неплохо знает русский язык. da-1 Denne bruger har et grundlæggende kendskab til dansk. 8,000+ This user has made more than 8,000 contributions to Misplaced Pages.

Archives

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Something about me.

I'm middle-aged, married, male, a parent and perenially stressed and occasionally scatty. I'm also English and a bit opinionated. I use wikipedia to distract me from a very busy worklife so I can't be bothered get too worked up here even if occasionally the opposite appears to be case. I can usually be appeased with the offer of a cup of tea since I drink gallons of the stuff in real life.

If you are concerned about an admin action I have taken and disagree, feel free to leave me a note and we can talk about it. I'm rarely unresponsive to reasonable requests. I tend to be deletionist but am a real sucker for reliable sources so if you can provide these, you will almost always see your article undeleted - as long as there wasn't some other concern anyway. I'm also generally good for userfying a deleted article if you want to edit it in userspace before trying it again in mainspace. Just leave me a message.

If you are an admin and want to undo an admin action but I'm not around to discuss; feel free. Its a wiki after all.

Talk page

No problems. To tell the truth I thought it was your user page. I saw the edit summary and just hit revert. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 20:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, that made a mess of your talk page. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 20:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually I can't work out how to fix the table to the right. Any ideas? Spartaz 20:33, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I am doing this as a favor for my friend Odst, as he really wants you to read his appeal. please go to his talk page. thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.8.212.141 (talk) 05:52, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

AfD closures

Please remember to use {{at}} at the top of the discussion and {{ab}} at the end(or Bottom), also sign so that if there's any reason to question the closure editors know where to ask. example of this not occurring Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Buddhist Monkey (second nomination)Gnangarra 13:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Screwed up there didn't I!. I just closed a bunch. I'll go back and check whether I screwed up any more. Thanks. Spartaz 13:21, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

great, I've already fixed a couple more from the 8th. Gnangarra 13:28, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

fixing ab is good exercise for the mind, adding AT to the end you must be tired :-) Gnangarra 13:30, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 January 8 they where in this log, sorry for confussion. Gnangarra 13:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

AfD closure

Hey. On Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Jieming Unit, there were two pages nominated for deletion - Jieming Unit and Jieming Field, yet you only deleted the first. Should I mark the second one for CSD under housekeeping or something? — HelloAnnyong 13:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)  Done sorry I'm too tired to keep up. I better stop closing AFDs for the day. Thanks for pointing this out. Spartaz 13:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Vpmi Article: Deleted

I am writing about an article you decided to delete for Vpmi. I wanted to get some clarification because the reason you gave for deleting the article was that it had no online sources. I'm not sure what you mean by that. For example, almost every source on there was related to an online article published in predominately online magazines such as eWeek and Network World as well an independent analysis done by an organization called Butler Group in the UK. The link to that is also online and was included in the article for a reference. Other references were to books that are published and those, quite frankly, just won't be good online references but are good references nonetheless. I am hoping you can reconsider your decision as I felt the article was very well referenced and when compared to the many articles that are listed on the page was clearly the best referenced of all. I appreciate you getting back to me.--Tilleyg (talk) 16:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I think you are cherry-picking from my closing statement. The discussion addressed the sourcing and concerns were raised about whether the cited sources were specifically about the subject. What concerned me was that for notable software it is unheard of it not having it on-line sources and this supported the concerns about the sourcing raised. Let me ask you a couple of things. Why are you so determined in having this article and do you have any relationship to this outside wikipedia? Spartaz 20:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm just not sure how to convince you of the cited sources being about the subject without sending you the actual articles. Would it help if the article had direct links to the actual articles rather than just a reference to them as you might find in a bibliography? That is easily done. I must admit that I have been in the business of project and portfolio management for 8 years and I can say with 100% confidence that this is far from an unheard of product. With companies like ETRADE, Johnson & Johnson, US Army, Express Scripts, PepsiAmericas and others using VPMi, I think it is well beyond unheard of. I won't lie to you. I work for VCSonline and we deliver the solution. That is why I went to such lengths to simply make the article fact based with no flowery language or suggestions of features that might make the article actually more valuable in an encyclopedia. I will also guarantee you that every article listed on was written by vendors. If you are going to apply these rules to my article, I think it is only fair that you do the same to the other articles on that site. Doing so will result in no articles left on that site. That I can guarantee you. I've looked at the references the other vendors have provided and they are far inferior to what I've given. I added VPMi beceause it IS a notable software solution and lends credibility to your . The software solutions that you have on that list (with the exception of MS Project, Primavera and @Task), are far from notable. When I found that list I felt it deserved to be a more credible source. That is why I added VPMi. If you think that is unreasonable I guess we must disagree and I am left with no recourse, despite the fact that I have far more experience and insight to this list than the admins making the decisions. This is really all I can offer you. I hope you will reconsider. If it was the sources not being linked to the actual online articles, I would be more than happy to add those links. I do hope you will reconsider or at a minimum take a hard look at the other tools on that list and at least be fair about this.--Tilleyg (talk) 15:27, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Would you be willing to restore the article if the links were to external sources where the references can be verified and validated as genuine? I think that would address the concerns related to notability. Please let me know if this can be done to make the article acceptable for inclusion on Misplaced Pages.--Tilleyg (talk) 06:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

• • Feel free to show me what you mean and I'll review it. Spartaz 20:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
  • What I had in mind was to make the references external links to the articles on the web. Like the following:
• Martin J. Garvey (January 28, 2003). "Real-Time Access to IT Projects". Information Week. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

• Balachandar Ganesh, Roy Illsley, Somak Roy (November 11, 2007). "VCSonline – VPMi Professional 3.6 Technology Audit". Butler Group. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

• John Fontana (September 16, 2002). "Project Management Software adds management controls". Network World. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

• Dennis Callaghan (September 16, 2002). "Tools to Ease Collaboration". eWeek. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

• Marie Lingblom (February 11, 2003). "VCS Revs Up Enterprise Project Management Tools, Launches U.S. Reseller Program". CRN. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

• Rachel Melcer (October 3, 2002). "Small software firm helps big companies to get a grip on IT projects". St. Louis Post Dispatch. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

• Carolyn Green (April 4, 2003). "Virtual Communications Real Success". St. Louis Business Journal. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

• “PM Network Case Study: VPMi.”, PM Network July, 2007.
• Buttrick, Robert (2005). The Project Workout Third Edition. Great Britain.: Prentice Hall - Financial Times. ISBN 0-273-68181-8.
• Schwalbe, Kathy (2007). Information Technology Project Management Fifth Edition. Course Technology, Inc. ISBN 1-423-90145-2.

Some references are books that are not available on the web or in one case an article you can only access via the web if you login to the publisher's site. If this is not sufficient, I can update the content of the article so that the references are to comments within the article rather than simply references at the end of the article. To do this, I will really need access to the content I once had on Misplaced Pages so I can update it. Please let me know if this will meet Misplaced Pages standards. Thank you. --Tilleyg (talk) 05:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

• Just to note that I haven't forgotten about this but need some time to look through the references properly. Spartaz 18:23, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Much appreciated. I imagine this all gets to be fairly overwhelming. Looking forward to your decision.--Tilleyg (talk) 19:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Just a friendly reminder to have you take a look at the references above so that I know if the VPMi page will be restored. Thank you. --Tilleyg (talk) 00:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I should have looked at these already. I'll try and do it this evening or tomorrow. Spartaz 15:57, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

A belated thank you for your RFA support! Archtransit (talk) 21:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Buddhist Monkey

Hi Spartaz. Regarding Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Buddhist Monkey (second nomination), I'm curious how you came to the conclusion that "the result of the debate was Delete" when there was in fact, no discussion. I was hoping to actually get some consensus on this in the interests of deleting other similar pages, but without a discussion, there can be no consensus. What do you think? Powers 23:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Consensus is measured against policy and your arguments reflected policy. If no-one can be bothered to disagree in 5 days then by default your argument is accepted. I agree it doesn't make much of a precedent but Afd results are non-binding as consensus can change. I'd just list the worse and see what happens and if they are deleted list the rest. Cheers Spartaz 07:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

• I came here for the matter below but just noticed this too. I read the article when it was proposed in AFD and thought it was quite good. I am not familiar with the topic though and got diverted before I could research sources and such. Deleting the article after no discussion seems improper. Note WP:DGFA - If in doubt, don't delete. Please consider relisting instead. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  • There is no quorum for deletion debates. Why should I not go ahead with a well argued rational for deletion that is grounded in policy simply because noone chose to oppose it or said me too? Spartaz 04:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

• No policy was cited by the nominator or yourself. Notability is just a guideline and, as I understand it, many articles were written before it was introduced. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

That's exactly why so many older articles are now being deleted - because they no longer meet the inclusion criteria for the 'pedia. Spartaz 12:27, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of British Traditional Counties

Your closing statement seems to ignore the discussion. It thus appears that you have formed your own opinion of the matter rather than summarising the discussion in an impartial way. As I understand it, this is improper. Please reconsider. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:34, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you but I followed the discussion closely. The final consensus should to be measured against policy not head count so in closing the discussion I identified the element that made the list outwith policy. Spartaz 04:47, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

• Nobody in the discussion used the term indiscriminate,as you did, even allowing for spelling, and the nomination didn't come close to it, being based primarily upon WP:PLACE, which you didn't mention. Since the point of the list seems to have been to document the ABC's conception that there are well-understood, long-standing counties, the exact content of the list would be trivial to source, if this was not done already. One of the opposers even clarified the matter as being about the idea that traditional counties were timeless. It seems that it is his somewhat rival idea of historic that is more vague, as you would need a timeframe as context. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:01, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

• per the following quotes in the discussion:
  • by whose 'tradition' - the assumption that there is a uniform 'British' tradition in this area
  • Since the article doesn't explain what's a traditional county is, this isn't much of a stand-alone.
  • Traditional is one of those ambiguous phrases that doesn't really have any useful meaning in the context of an encyclopedia
  • What are the time-scales or limits for this
  • If nothing else, the difference between England, Wales and Scotland in this area is so great as to make the critera for inclusion in such a list unascertainable
• All of the above reference the lack of definition for inclusion in the list and this is what I'm referring to in my close. Lists must have a proper basis for inclusion to avoid becoming indescriminate information {per WP:NOT#INFO and this issue is threaded all through the discussion. If not explicitly stated is is clearly implicitly stated. Spartaz 12:26, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

The Natural (film)

You could lift the article's block now, if you're willing. I have some sources to add to other parts of the article, but I do not intend to get into the "trivia" discussion again (which triggered the block in the first place). That's over with. Baseball Bugs 09:19, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

 Done I'll lock it again if the edit warring resumes. Spartaz 12:29, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I didn't know

I didn't know that was againt the rules. I removed all Vote tags from my sigs on all my posts. --ジェイ 接触 貢献 ゲストブック 13:00, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Top Gear races

You recently closed this discussion, 5 pages were nominated (per Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion#How to list multiple related pages for deletion),3 of which were merged into another article during the course of the debate. Of the rest, the title page of the debate was deleted per your decision but nothing has been done with the other 2 pages. As you do not mention the pages separately in your closing I was wondering what the current situation regarding them was. I'm sorry if you have dealt with this issue elsewhere. Guest9999 (talk) 00:16, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

•  Done Thanks for reminding me. Spartaz 14:03, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for the quick response. Guest9999 (talk) 14:38, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

MAIN RACES

After the top gear races page was deleted do you think it would be a good idea to list the main races (the ones that feature all three presenters) such as the

car vs train, car vs plane, car vs boat, car vs private plane, car vs bike vs boat vs public transport,

in the same way that the main top gear challenges are listed on the main top gear article. I do not think that the smaller races such as car vs rocket powered rollerblades should be mentioned because the only last for around 5 minutes and only feature one presenter. BERTIE LOST FAN (talk) 14:02, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

• That's an editorial decision for the article. If you can find some reliable sources of course. Spartaz 14:05, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

User:CBFan

It looks like this user, whom you blocked, may be evading the block using dynamic IPs on List of Crash Bandicoot characters. I've sprotected the page and filed a checkuser request. Just thought you'd like to know. I also left a note on the user's page suggesting they stop.  :-) - Philippe | Talk 19:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Block evasion is confirmed by checkuser. I have reset his block. - Philippe | Talk 20:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Spartaz 20:37, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Alesana

Missed this one, more work for me. Can you userfy it for me? Chubbles (talk) 21:31, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

re Guy - copied from my talkpage

per: Your comments at ANI
I'm glad to see you self reverted but honestly don't you think its a little insensitive to advocated desysopping him?? Talk about kicking while he is down.... Spartaz Humbug! 22:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm talking about protecting Misplaced Pages when a user with certain community given powers may be emotionally distressed, and that the removal of the tools is only for that period while these issues may be effecting him. JzG has a history of having his decisions/actions being less than appreciated by sections of the community; disallowing him the potential of seriously compromising his standing while he may be particularly vulnerable might be considered being helpful, I suggest. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Deletion Review for W00t

An editor has asked for a deletion review of W00t. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. CastAStone/ 15:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Attempted RfC removed

I created (or, attempted to create) an RfC, which had been here (it's gone from there; if it was moved to some place more appropriate, nobody has informed me and I don't know where). You deleted reference to it at the RfC list, this diff, suggesting in the comment that the RfC was mal-formed. I do not see any notification of this action either. I attempted to follow the instructions. Can you indicate what I did wrong? Spa siba. Pete St.John (talk) 20:17, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

RFC's need to be certified by two users within 48 hours of creation to avoid deletion. Spartaz 20:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Right. In the item you deleted, I described my basis for considering two users to have attempted to mediate (up to that point). When I created the RfC (at the recommendation of the response of the wikiquette item, which is now archived) the button didn't work (maybe just lag?) so I attempted to reproduce the item manually. After the article was ignored for some time (several days) I added it to the "candidate" section manually. (That was proably more than 48 hours ago, now). So, if nobody comments, then it is deleted? An RfC can merely be ignored and deleted without comment? The response at the wikiquette was that the matter was too complex for wikiquette. The archive (with the wikiquette item) is very laggy for me, I may have dificulty finding the material. Pete St.John (talk) 21:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

You are correct, the RFC must be certified by two users within 48 hours of being listed at RFC/UC and this did not happen. This is the way the system works. RFCs are very blunt instruments. Singleton issues are better dealth with at WP:ANI. Frankly, if this issue happened a couple of weeks ago and there has been no repeat then I would suggest that you just let it go. Spartaz 21:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

This is from a long-running battle of considerable complexity; the claim is that the accused uses subtle and diffuse methods to debate unethically and harangue editors out of the venue. He's won, because I did leave the venue (not being able to stomach the harangue) and put my attention on the request for intervention. The result was that it was too complicated: exactly the accused's method of success. And naturally nobody wants to investigate it thoroughly, because of exactly that complexity. But now, I have to reproduce the case as an AN/I (escalating from the Wikiquette, which got no response as too complicated, and now from the RfC, basically ditto) and the material is buried in the deleted RfC and the archived Wikiquette, where it will be a PITA for me to reconstruct. So what's my take-away from this? First, there is a great way to hound people away from editting: by being sufficiently oblique, over a long enough period of time, that no simple set of diffs convinces an admin to take an action, and nobody will do anything if it's not simple. Second, next time I submit an RfC I must find two people to certify them, since I wouldn't be doing an RfC in the first place if it were simple. Pete St.John (talk) 21:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem userfying this in your area so you don't have to redo everything. I'll do it now and leave you a note where to find it. Spartaz 21:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much. I have a /scratchpad root for that kind of thing, but I'll cope. It's a big help just to have the text, unfortunately it cites the wikiquette, which I'll have to dig up from the archive, but the text is a big help. Pete St.John (talk) 22:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Its done already. The location is shown in your usertalk. The arcane RFC rules are designed to protect users from frivolous RFCs. On reflection ANI is a poor venue for a complicated case - have you considered mediation or seeking a third opinion or Editor Assistance? Spartaz 22:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey!

That's not fair! I added another reason for undeletion and I deserve more answers! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.168.213.239 (talk) 21:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

No. We don't have any reason to keep the old page. I can't se ewhy you need it. I can only presume that you did something and are proud of the warnings. Tough. Please stop this disruptive crusade. Spartaz 22:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to not have it either. You are just making things hard for me - AND YOURSELF - by not doing it! Besides, do you realise that the administator who deleted the old page is the most hated Misplaced Pages administrator? 144.131.176.126 (talk) 06:37, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Is that a threat? Spartaz 08:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

No it's not. I just want you to realise that. 124.176.218.144 (talk) 22:03, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:MFD#Userspace original research on organized crime

I agree entirely with the close but you deleted all of the nominated links without noting that you were or why and because of the way the nomination was titled, there is now no way to see who the User was whose pages were nominated. Do you think you could just annotate that you've deleted the list of specific pages because they themselves were WP:BLP problems (I'm assuming that's the reason) and noting the User who these belonged to? Otherwise we're going to have to search the MFD subpage history to find anything. Thanks. --Doug. 04:46, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• The list was made with some list command and I couldn't work out how to fix the data once the pages had been deleted. The list can be found in my logs and any admin can find the deleted pages by sorting out the users' deleted contribs in user space. I did try to subst the list but it didn't work. I did consider leaving it for some more tech savy Admin but given the seriousness of the blp violation I felt they had to go immediately. Spartaz 09:10, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

  I agree with what you did, thanks for explaining, thanks for closing too, the complex ones seem to sit around at MFD and you are right this one needed to go immediately the issues were too serious to worry about the details of closing the MFD discussion subpage. I looked through WP:BLPN and found the section where this group of pages was originally brought up and I left a note there that they were deleted and linking to the discussion. Some of the linked pages are identified there. Thanks.--Doug. 17:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Franco-Mongol alliance, from ANI

Unless there is an abuse of admin powers this is a content dispute., Try mediation or an article RFC to promote wider input from the community. Spartaz 15:13, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

While I agree with your first sentence, I just want to note that both of the ideas in your second sentence were tried. -- tariqabjotu 15:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Then RFC is the next stage. Linking Elonka's adminship to a situation in which she is not using the tools is unhelpful to say the least. Spartaz 15:46, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

a thank you note

		Thanks for participating in my RfA!
		Although it failed 43/27/0, I'm happy because the outcome has been very helpful in many meaningful ways. Your support and remarks contributed so much to this. If you followed my RfA you know what happened. Most of the editors who posted opposing opinions have never edited with me. Some articles I edit deal with controversial topics and with respect to a very few of these, editors who didn't know much about me had some worries about confrontational editing and civility. Since I support their high standards I can easily (and will gladly) address this. The support and ecouragement to run again soon has been wonderful, thanks again. Cheers! Gwen Gale (talk) 05:28, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Care to comment?

Hello,

Would you be willing to comment on this? No one seems to have responded to the question.

Thanks

Pahari Sahib (talk) 11:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Just to let you know, I have replied to your comment on my talk page, looking at it again it may seem a little abrupt - but sums up how I feel.

Thanks anyway :-)

Pahari Sahib (talk) 19:39, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Just thought I'd point out that the blocking admin has apologised to me, it turned out to be a mistake :-), incidentally just to be clear in response to your statement (for the sake of posterity) "I should also comment that your request for unblocking was a question not a request for unblocking" - that exactly what it was meant to be, I used the unblock thing to get an answer from someone, of course I wanted to be unblocked, but more than anything wanted an explanation.

Regards

Pahari Sahib 20:00, 28 January 2008 (GMT)

Dodie Cross

The result was Delete Don't think I have ever seen an article nominated at AFD by its creator before.

) I admit, I'm still learning when to use PROD/AfD. I'd created the stub when I was new to Misplaced Pages before I really understood the requirements for notability Travellingcari (talk) 17:50, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that! I didn't know about the {{db-author}} tag, so thanks for that information. If I can't better source one of my other articles, I may use that. The thing I love about Misplaced Pages is that it's an interactive learning process. I'm looking back at other articles I created and it's good to see other input -- stuff I wasn't aware of or wouldn't have thought to add. Travellingcari (talk) 18:21, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

• That's why we all get addicted. :-) Spartaz 18:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Consensus on waiting

...three months between nominations. I can't find anything that has been written down. While a gap can build/reduce credibility, if problems are addressed, why not support? You don't have to change your opinion on my RfA, but I would like to know your rationale for such an opposition. — BQZip01 —  22:01, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

• I don't think its written down but if you regularly look at RFAs you will see this constantly being referred to. The point is that evaluators like to see how editors have developed between RFAs and what they have learned from the previous process. 3/4 weeks isn't anywhere near enough to judge this. You can see from the opposes that a decent gap is generally expected. My advice would be to withdraw now and explain you weren't aware. That should clear the way for this not be an issue the next time you apply and it should be much easier for you that time round. In the meantime I'm going to withdraw my oppose since you clearly didn't cotton on to the need for a decent break but please seriously consider advice to withdraw now. The quicker you do it now the less resistance there will be next time. Spartaz 22:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I see your point, but think it should be taken with a grain of salt. If the problems lie with the admin nomination process, the only way to show a correction is to apply again. There is no way I could expand on question one or avoid canvassing in my next admin nomination without actually resubmitting. If someone's objections are with regards to edit history or recent malicious acts, then this objection makes much more sense. I appreciate your candor and do not mind an oppose or a comment (that is your choice/privilege on Misplaced Pages). I'm going to go ahead and let this nomination run its course and see if there are any additional "gotchas". Who knows. People may change their minds and I'll get the nomination or I might get feedback on something else I can change/do more/do less/etc. — BQZip01 —  22:25, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

• Fair enough. Your call. My final advice is to spend some time at RFA after this one fails and get a good feel for what the regulars are looking for. It will help you avoid unnecessary complications next time. Good luck. Spartaz 22:54, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for the advice. I'll put it in my "clue bag". — BQZip01 —  00:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Eri Kasamoto article

Why did you delete that article? AvengingStriker (talk) 10:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

• Please see the AFD discussion. I'm willing to review but I need you to rebut the suggestion that the article did not meet the relevant notability guideline. Spartaz 17:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

RfA thanks

I am not one for sending round pretty pictures, but after my recent RfA, which passed 68/1/7, I am now relaxed and this is to thank you for your support. I will take on board all the comments made and look forward to wielding the mop with alacrity. Or two lacrities. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 21:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I support a 24 hour block for User:Wfgh66

I said, "Maybe a 24 hour block will teach him to relax?" Regards, Igor Berger (talk) 07:41, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Please block this guy, he is trolling over editors talk pages trolling Igor Berger (talk) 08:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

He admited to sockpuppetry so that alone should be 30 day ban. Igor Berger (talk) 08:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

He wants to delete his own account Do not do it, but block him for 24 hours and later we can ban him for 30 days. Need to keep an eye on this pupy! Igor Berger (talk) 08:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• I do not think our guy learned anything. Just after coming out of a block he comes back and soap about fringe and cabal. Looks like someone unblocked him because it is less than 24 hours. Also the page was protected, so who took the protection down? Igor Berger (talk) 19:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• He is still blocked. You can edit your own talk page during a block unless an admin protects the thing. Nothing to worry about here. Spartaz 20:09, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

  This guy is very destructive. Good luck with him, Igor Berger (talk) 20:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• Looks like we found the master puppeteer Igor Berger (talk) 20:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

  The reason for his madness, his website is black listed priory - of - sion (dot) com Igor Berger (talk) 20:41, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Igor - please stop bugging me. Spartaz 21:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, okay, I'm crazy

User:CBFan is back. He was evading his block by creating a new account today. In fairness, when I asked him about it, he was honest with me. I think this is a kid who's obviously made some real mistakes, but there's hope for him to be a productive member of of the community. So... yeah, I'm crazy, but I reset his block, rather than making it indef. I also told him clearly that I didn't intend to give him ANY more chances. Since you blocked him, I'm letting you know as a courtesy. Please feel free to take any action you believe to be fair, and I invite your review of my action. - Philippe | Talk 04:10, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm OK with the way you handled it. Spartaz 16:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

For your consideration

Hi - because it is important to keep on top of this "troll's" doings (note he calls himself this term now). See here where he is legitimizing in relation to your name, and here where he is refusing to discuss his joke page.--VS 10:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for the heads up. Only problem from his point of view is that I didn't take any admin action in regard to this and confined myself to discussion and proposals on ANI. Spartaz 10:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Spartaz sorry to bother you, I know you asked me not to bug you. I called myself "Troll..:)" with a smile meaning sarcasm. Maybe Steve did not learn how to read sarcams. Steve I am not a Troll. Maybe VirtualSteve you are the only one Thinks I am a Troll. You need to read Misplaced Pages:What is a troll? stop calling good editors Trolls, Baiting them and Flaming them. Igor Berger (talk) 11:04, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

AFD

I just noticed that Tax slavery was deleted. In the future, could you notify the WikiProjects (WP:TAX) associated with the article at nom. I don't see any comments from the common tax editors in Misplaced Pages and nothing was posted to the project. I don't know which way I would have voted but it wasn't cool that it just got deleted with a nom and a weak delete, without even telling the group. I can't monitor all the tax articles on my watchlist... Morphh 13:18, 02 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't nominate the discussion, I just closed it so it isn't down to me to tell anyone of the discussion. Admins closing AFD discussions are certainly not going to spend their time checking with wiki-projects if its ok for them to close a finished discussion. Spartaz 13:34, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

G2bambina & Rufus MC

Hello Spartaz. Would it be possible to have G2's 2-week block shortened (if not reversed)? Perhaps instead have G2 & MC 'barred for 2-weeks' from editing the Republican articles in question. As I'm the editor who repeatedly urged them to use the 'discussion pages',I'm confident there's a chance they want 'edit war' there again. Just curious. GoodDay (talk) 19:21, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not persuaded that it would benefit G2bambino to have the block shortened. I chose a long block because of the length of their block log and they have shown absolutely no remorse for their edit warring and no indications that they have learned what it was that they did wrong. If I released them from the block it would just reinforce their belief that they have the right to disrupt the project as they please. I would be willing to consider shortening the block if G2bambino were to show some contritition and accepted a voluntary 1RR restriction. Spartaz 07:27, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Spartaz. I've informed him (G2) of your conditions. GoodDay (talk) 15:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

• Hi, I don't like butting in. But I am one of the editors involved in discussion at Debate on the Canadian Monarchy. G2Bambino did place a tag asking for outside help in balancing the article. In the light of that, don't you think two weeks is a bit much? And Rufus outing him? I would've thought that was a much bigger deal. But he only got a slap on the wrist. G2 hasn't ask me to say this.--Gazzster (talk) 23:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Rufus is a new user and (if you check the guidelines for blocking) allowances need to be made for inexperienced editors per WP:BITE. You will see on their talk page that I left them an unequivocal warning about conduct. G2bambino is an extremely experienced editor and has a block log as long as my arm. He makes good contributions but seems wedded to edit warring his way round the project. This simply has to stop. Short blocks haven't persuaded him that he needs to change his ways so the only option left is to start escalating the blocks to bring home the fact that the project will not tolerate his editing style. I have already indicated conditions I would be prepared to consider reducing the block. The ball is in his court. Spartaz 06:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, for unblocking G2. GoodDay (talk) 17:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Kemo the Blaxican

How can I go about getting the Kemo the Blaxican article undeleted? That wiki has been vandalized repeatedly for a long time, I took a look at the cached version of it on Google (prior to deletion) and noticed that it was seriously vandalized before the speedy deletion tag was added, I imagine by whomever later included the tag. Kemo was the only Spanish speaking member of Delinquent Habits, he was subsequently the reason why "Tres Delinquentes" was a platinum single. He has since put out two solo albums (carried on Amazon.com, CD Universe, iTunes), a label that has put out albums by other artists, and a clothing company. Granted he's not 50 Cent, but he's got 37,000 results on Yahoo. How can we go about getting the wiki restored, particularly the version that wasn't vandalized? It's been a target for the same vandals for a long time now. 68.155.97.188 (talk) 06:43, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

• Please see Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Kemo_the_Blaxican. The problem is that there are no real world independant sources that discuss this subject in detail. This is required to meet our policies on notability and verifiability. As it was the article was just unsourced original research. If you want it undeleted you need to find me two reliable sources that discuss the subject in detail. Spartaz 07:20, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

If you Google "Kemo the Blaxican interview" you'll find a number of sites that discuss his career. I'm not even talking his own quotes, but the intros that go into detail about what he had accomplished. There were a other references on the wiki, but I can't access them now that they're deleted. 68.155.97.188 (talk) 09:40, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Please read WP:RS. The sources need to be published, peer reviewed and independant. This means that fan sites are almost certainly not going to meet the requirement. The google results have already been reviewed by the participants of the AFD discussion. If you have sites you think meet the criteria you are welcome to post them here but I'm not trawling google for you. If you want to have the article restored the least you can do it do the scut work yourself. Spartaz 10:02, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Your decision regarding SCSI Page

I believe the first 3 reverts are a literal violation subject to action and therefore request you reconsider your decision to take no action. I note that IL2BA subsequently continues to make reversions to the page without engaging in Talk. It's sort of like offside in Football, once you are in the position, moving to an onside position does not cure u of the offense!

FWIW, I have no problem with a lock-down, but I do question in what state you choose to lock the page. It seems to me that consistent with the policy the page should be locked at my last edit since if you decompose the edits you will find:

1. a sentence with an undisputed date correction.
2. a disputed sentence, which I believe I have restated to remove the incorrect elements.
3. several modified sentences containing undisputed facts.

I suggest consistent with the policy the page state at lock down should contain 1 and 3 above and either 2 or the original (IMO incorrect) sentence. I will post such a revised paragraph on the talk page.

Thanks for your consideration Tom94022 (talk) 18:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
PS although I am a Yank, I am a licensed USSF Soccer referee. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tom94022 (talk • contribs) 18:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

• Admins are not allowed to protect a page on a preferred version. If protection is required the last version must be protected unless there are copyvio or BLP issue that must be expunged. See the protection WP:PROTECT for details. Spartaz 19:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, so the last edit survives regardless of the content. Not IMO a particularly good way to get good content, but sobeit.

However, this still leaves open the question that since IW2BA did violate the 3RR rule on 30 Jan, can and should he be sanctioned given his continued Wiki abuses, i.e., continued reversion without use of Talk page and reversion of undisputed facts? BTW I am struggling to get this request for comment both on the Talk page and in the article. I want to use the content template to point to the RFCsig bot generated Talk page but can't figure out how to do it. I would point out that IW2BA does nothing but revert while I am trying to do it the Wiki way. Tom94022 (talk) 19:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

• Its unlikely we will sanction an editor for something that happened 3 days ago. You need to strike while the iron is hot and submit a 3RR report. IIRC your first report was incomplete which is why it wasn't acted upon or did I get that wrong? Otherwise just pliug away, things sort themselves out over time. Your first step would be to use their talk page to discuss their edits and see whether you can sort them out between the two of you. If not, try editor assistance; third opinion; mediation or editor request for comment. These are all recognised steps of dispute resolution. The role of admins is akin to a referee blowing his whistle for an offside. The referee does not decide who is right because the players (or editors in this analogy) sort it out between themselves. Admins can of course come and block everyone and lock pages but that is a less then ideal solution as it doesn't resolve any underlying issues. I'm not personally a very good mediator as i'm impatient and too heavy handed so I can't really help - I'm better at closing deletion disputes and blocking trolls. I'd suggest that you use the editor's talk to leave a friendly message and try and hammer out a compromise or at least get them to use the talk page to discuss concerns. If that doesn't work you can go for EA and 3O as the next step. I'd avoid RFC/Mediation as very complicated processes that take forever. Please let me know if you need any further help/advice. Spartaz 19:51, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Slavic toponyms for Greek places

Please reconsider your close of this afd. I am a topynymist by schooling so this was somewhat a surprising result. While I sympathize with deletions where sources are not cited, I find it difficult to believe that sources cannot be found. Indeed, there was at least one cited in the article, but let me point to you others: The Inhabited Places of the Aegean Macedonia, (1998), ISBN 9989-9819-4-9, which focuses on the northern regions of Greece. The book cites numerous Greek laws published in the official gazette are cited: no doubt these are available somewhere, though not perhaps online or in English, see e.g., Decree of 17 September 1926, published in Administrative Gazette 332 of 21 September 1926, entitled "On Renaming Villages, Towns and Cities", and another of 13 November 1927, codified as Act 3,342 enacted 12 December 1927, etc. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

• I have absolutely no way of checking these references or sources and suspect I wouldn't understand them even if I did but that's OK. If you check back on my close you will see that I specifically stated that recreation can happen as soon as some sources are found. Since you have done this, please feel free to undelete the article and add the refs appropriately. I see this as fully in accordance with my close so there is no need to void the AFD. Feel free to leave an explanatory note there if you wish. Thank you for saving this article. Spartaz 20:48, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks....And fooey to those who claim I'm a deletionist. :-); just an immediatist. Is that worse? LOL Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

• Take a look at Slavic toponyms of places in Imathia Prefecture‎, see what you think. :-) Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:47, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

• Superb! Fantastic work recreating this one. Just one niggle for me, what version of Cyrillic are you using for slavonic transliteration? I noticed a couple where the cyrillic version doesn't match modern Cyrillic (Modern Bulgarian uses the same alphabet as modern Russian) and the transliteration was different for the same sound on a couple of these. I just wondered, before I fixed them, whether I was simply being guilty of trying to apply a modern alphabet to something older. The example was a soft-sign and two versions of ZH. Spartaz 19:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for the complement. Actually, the orthography is from the (Slavic) Macedonian alphabet, not the Bulgarian one, and I checked them again just now and they seem to be correct. Certain letters: Ј, Љ, Њ, Ѓ, and Ќ are used in Macedonian but not Bulgarian. See: Macedonian alphabet. I hope to post more prefectures, but entering in the Greek and Cyrillic is time consuming, but kind of fun. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

• In that case I'll just go back to my previous comment ;). Superb - great work with this one. Spartaz 20:05, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

RFC

This addition of a "revised RFC" is all very uncharacteristic of Archtransit, and their other edits don't reflect this. I know you've probably posted by the time I've written this, but do you believe a reconfirmation RFA is a good option? Rudget. 20:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't matter. I've seen your opinion on the talk page. :) Regards, Rudget. 20:29, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

I had forgotten about Guy's request. I appreciate your moving my comment for me. Bellwether _C 19:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

No worries. I just left you a redirect on your talk page. We seem to have cross posted. Cheers. Spartaz 19:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

DRev

Well, I'm glad I had at least time to get my position in. it takes careful watching to be heterodox. :). Not that I really disagree we need to see the article draft first. DGG (talk) 00:32, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

It seemed pointless keeping it open when there was a longstanding consensus about what conditions we would consider this again. I had intended to close it earlier but having seen your comment I thought we might see some further useful debate. GRBerry's contribution kind of closed that down for me and the potential dramafest when we have quite a full house of drama filled things on the go suggested that we weren't going to benefit from keeping it open. If it helps, I think I am much more careful about closing debates than I was when I first got the bit and, you might be surprised to know, I'm always extremely careful to make sure that your contributions to AFDs are given full weight - not least because you are really good at finding decent references for stuff that might otherwise have got deleted. Spartaz 07:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

you'll notice i didn't say you were wrong to close it. (Nor do I think I'm being ignored in closings, nor do I have problems with your closings otherwise). In terms of practicalities that article is going to have to be written in draft before a DR will be acceptable. I have been wondering however what the arguments will be when a substantial article or 2 directly about it does in fact get written in a good source, since it's clear some will never accept it, no matter what appears.DGG (talk) 15:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that will be a very interesting debate and I'm certainly not brave enough to close that one. I would guess that if an article were created it would almost certainly end up being permanently protected in some form or other. I didn't think you were challenging my close but we have rubbed edges over my DRV/AFD closes in the past and I thought it would be a good opportunity to acknowledge that some of the things you tried to drum into me when I was first promoted are starting to stick. Last time you posted on my talk page you accused me of substituting my own opinion for an AFD discussion in some close or other (I think it was one of the cyrodill AFDs) so I was kind of under the impression that you generally disapproved of my closes. Spartaz 15:52, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

1. [[http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR#User:ILike2BeAnonymous_reported_by_User:Tom94022_.28Result:_no_vio.2Fno_action_.29 ILike2BeAnnyomous