| Revision as of 05:27, 13 June 2015 editSpartaz (talk | contribs)Administrators52,776 edits OneClickArchiver archived 1 discussion to User talk:Spartaz/Archive19← Previous edit | Revision as of 05:27, 13 June 2015 edit undoSpartaz (talk | contribs)Administrators52,776 edits OneClickArchiver archived 1 discussion to User talk:Spartaz/Archive19Next edit → | ||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
| |counter = 19 | |counter = 19 | ||
| }} | }} | ||
| == Eric Sullivan == | |||
| Hello. I am a bit confused regarding your deletion decision for ]. Since a few years ago, ] is awarded to album producers as well, which is clearly stated on the official Grammy website and for which I proved evidence during ]. So, basically nothing differs Eric Sullivan from other Grammy-winning producers. The topic clearly passes ] and ]. Before taking this to Deletion review, I wanted to check things with you. Cheers! --] (]) 08:53, 2 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :as far as I can see the Grammy was for an album not a personal Grammy. Unless there is a consensus to point to that says that counts as a personal win, I'd expect DRV to prefer a failure to meet GNG over an albums award. YMMV. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 20:24, 2 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{ping|Spartaz}}: You are mistaken here. The Grammy is awarded personally to the producers of winning albums. Thus, he won the Grammy to his very own name since he was working on the Grammy-awarded album. I believe that is a new practice from Grammy not older than a few years. That is way I was surprised by your decision especially since other users pointed that as well. --] (]) 14:19, 6 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::You don;t need to ping on my own talk page. Have you got a source for that? That the Grammy for an albumn is awarded to the producer and not the artist? ] <sup>'']''</sup> 14:59, 6 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :: Yes, see under 2013 in Winners column: "Laura Sullivan, artist. Eric Sullivan, producer." - thus two Grammys have been awarded. I have stated that in the discussion, but it was obviously ignored. Also, in ], in second paragraph of the lead section it is stated and cited with ref no. 5: "Beginning in 2001, award recipients included the producers, engineers, and/or mixers associated with the nominated work in addition to the recording artists." --] (]) 15:26, 6 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Hmmm, Yes I did see that earlier. My problem is that its not a personal grammy and if I might quote from ]; | |||
| :::::''People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included'' | |||
| ::::The language there is very clear that meeting a single condition is not a silver bullet and in this case we have a BLP of an individual who most certainly fails the GNG. On that basis, and given the wider project priority around sourcing BLPs, I'd take a view that the GNG must tale preference. I'll list this at DRV for discussion. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 06:44, 7 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == SilverSurfingSerpent and Jesse Helms == | == SilverSurfingSerpent and Jesse Helms == | ||
Revision as of 05:27, 13 June 2015
 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.
You may want to increment {{Archive basics}} to |counter= 20 as User talk:Spartaz/Archive19 is larger than the recommended 150Kb.
SilverSurfingSerpent and Jesse Helms
Hey there, Jesse Helms is under attack by single-purpose accounts pulling the same POV whitewashing that "SilverSurfingSerpent" did before you blocked him. I think obvious socks are obvious, can you take a look when you can? Tarc (talk) 19:56, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
- He can certainly take a look, but what will he find? Nada. I'm not a sockpuppet of anybody. You're the POV warrior here. TheWhiteKnight1 (talk) 20:04, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
- The troll above has conveniently appeared; account created at 15:51, revert-warring starts at 15:53. Tarc (talk) 20:07, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
FYI: User:TheWhiteKnight1
Saw your comment at his talk. Found his talk page via this SPI Just a heads up. Capitalismojo (talk) 21:54, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Please undelete my team
Hi, I'm with the Cambridge Rollerbillies, formerly the Romsey Town Rollerbillies, and we still are actually both until the stationery runs out (http://rollerbillies.com.) We got deleted In 2011 (https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Romsey_Town_Rollerbillies) apparently seven times in quick succession lol (https://en.wikipedia.org/Romsey_Town_Rollerbillies) but we were already in the UKRDA by 2011, so can we please be undeleted? Thanks love! <3 <3 xoxo DKBaps (talk) 10:17, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
- Pleaze see Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2011 October 26 . Basically, you need to find sources that meet WP:GNG and bring them to DRV for discussion. Please also read WP:COI first. Thanks. Spartaz 10:50, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Dairiese Gary
Just saying, it was a pretty bad move to speedy and protect Dairese Gary. Im thinking about reporting the action since it was marked for speedy and declined. Nominating for AfD would have been a better move. ~EDDY ~ 20:54, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
- →Does the irony of your threatening me for not following process when my action was a direct response of your flagrant run around the drv process escape you I wonder. You are welcome to present your new sources to drv and ask them to consider if they justify a relist. Of course you could go to ANI but I'm sure you will get referred back to drv anyway. Spartaz 22:01, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
- I just want to make it clear that I was not trying to do a run around the DRV. Just because an article was deleted at AfD does not mean something should be deleted forever. As an example, two articles I have recently created, Abdul Gaddy and Olu Ashaolu, were previously deleted at AfD. Does that mean they should be speedy deleted? The speedy delete was ALREADY DECLINED by someone other than me. Deleting it, and most of all protecting it so even if he plays in the NBA an article cant be created, was the real WP:DICK move. ~EDDY ~ 22:25, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
- seriously? In the middle of a drv you decide it's not necessary to listen to editors who gave up their volunteer time to consider your requests?Are you incapable of listing your sources or asking for an unlock if they become notable? Spartaz 22:31, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
- I'm also giving up my own time, buddy. Most of the other editors said something along the lines of "Joe Decker made the correct decision to delete the article, but it can be recreated if there are sources to establish notability." I did that, and requested to end the DRV. Instead you decided to delete the article, despite the fact that an uninvolved editor removed a speedy tag. It seems like you protected it just to piss me off -- is that what Humbug is supposed to mean. In any case I listed two sources on the DrV page. There were other sources, which you could have seen if you had actually bothered to read the article. ~EDDY ~ 00:22, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
- seriously? In the middle of a drv you decide it's not necessary to listen to editors who gave up their volunteer time to consider your requests?Are you incapable of listing your sources or asking for an unlock if they become notable? Spartaz 22:31, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
- I just want to make it clear that I was not trying to do a run around the DRV. Just because an article was deleted at AfD does not mean something should be deleted forever. As an example, two articles I have recently created, Abdul Gaddy and Olu Ashaolu, were previously deleted at AfD. Does that mean they should be speedy deleted? The speedy delete was ALREADY DECLINED by someone other than me. Deleting it, and most of all protecting it so even if he plays in the NBA an article cant be created, was the real WP:DICK move. ~EDDY ~ 22:25, 12 June 2015 (UTC)