| Revision as of 17:44, 18 June 2015 edit123.201.175.177 (talk) →June 2015Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit← Previous edit | Revision as of 19:30, 18 June 2015 edit undoSpartaz (talk | contribs)Administrators52,776 edits blocked is blocked even if you use ips to sock. no?Next edit → | ||
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
| == Arbitration case opening == | == Arbitration case opening == | ||
| You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at ]. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at ]. '''Please add your evidence by June 30, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes.''' You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, ]. For a guide to the arbitration process, see ]. For the Arbitration Committee, <font face="Papyrus" size="4" color="#800080">]</font> <sup><font face="Times New Roman" color="#006400">] ]</font></sup> 01:49, 17 June 2015 (UTC) | You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at ]. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at ]. '''Please add your evidence by June 30, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes.''' You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, ]. For a guide to the arbitration process, see ]. For the Arbitration Committee, <font face="Papyrus" size="4" color="#800080">]</font> <sup><font face="Times New Roman" color="#006400">] ]</font></sup> 01:49, 17 June 2015 (UTC) | ||
| ==June 2015== | |||
| This is regarding DRV closure by you of June 16. I am unclear why did you close the drv before any consensus disrupting the discussion. Please undo your action and wait for the consensus. I was in the process to reply Hobit when I found that thread closed. The article deleted wasn't completely non notable. It was deleted on marginal lines of failing WP:BLP. I have givend evidences for that. Let the admins examing this case determine the consensus. ] (]) 17:42, 18 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 19:30, 18 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= 21 as User talk:Spartaz/Archive20 is larger than the recommended 150Kb.
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)
- Is http://www.britishchamps.com/team-profile-cambridge-rollerbillies/ a good source? What does "bring them to DRV" mean and require? Thank you again. DKBaps (talk) 13:18, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
- Notm really no. Its just a list of game results and has no critical commentary. I also can't see that there is any peer review or other indpendant fact checking. You need to think more about the standard of broadsheet newspaper articles. Sorry. Spartaz 17:44, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
- Is http://www.britishchamps.com/team-profile-cambridge-rollerbillies/ a good source? What does "bring them to DRV" mean and require? Thank you again. DKBaps (talk) 13:18, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Dairese Gary
Your input is requested at the deletion review. ~EDDY ~ 22:21, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you for upholding proper process. Stifle (talk) 08:46, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Arbitration case opening
You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Technical 13. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Technical 13/Evidence. Please add your evidence by June 30, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Technical 13/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Liz 01:49, 17 June 2015 (UTC)