![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Black Kite, I would propose that you revert the content of the Frankfurt School article to the stable version, pending discussion of the disputed material on the Talk page. I have given my reasoning there, but it amounts to (1) in a BRD cycle, the stable version is to remain in place pending discussion (except in cases of BRP violations or COPYVIO, which this is not), and (2) the recent Deletion review found that, while the Cultural Marxism article should remain deleted, sourced discussion of the issue is appropriately found on the Frankfurt School article. The removal of this content appears to have been contrary to the Deletion review finding even though the deletor cited the DR in one of their edit summaries for the deletion.
As I've said elsewhere, I don't have an axe to grind on the substantive issue (and the 2014 close was a good one, all things considered). But as a strong supporter of BRD as a procedural norm, it bothers me that you chose to protect the non-stable version of the article. Newimpartial ( talk) 14:44, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
I'm well aware that this isn't about blocking anyone, but I couldn't help but notice some parallels between 2012 and now. Floq's right though. You made the point about holding others to certain civility standards while engaging in uncivil rhetoric, you'll get neither a retraction nor an apology, but it's on record. There's nothing further to be gained here. MLauba ( Talk) 17:45, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
You do good work, and I appreciate standing on principle... but that case request is just going to get declined and make everyone more irritated at each other than they already were. 28bytes ( talk) 19:25, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
Can you please change this to no consensus. We have found hard to prove that NOPAGE does not apply. We have provided numerous sources stating her lifestyle and gives her life significant coverage. The most important thing is that she is the third oldest person ever lived. I believe we can make a strong argument that top ten oldest people should have pages can you please reconsider. Also to note I counted the votes there was two socks MarkAQuinn in favor of deleting and Julia Kinsley in favor of keeping. Cunard provided sources which shows significant coverage was did not even get a chance to include Japanese sources. Valoem talk contrib 19:37, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
I do not understand why "contributes on Japanese subjects" is a valid supporting reason to discard an editor's vote. Vivexdino is an established editor who contributes primarily to Japanese subjects. Vivexdino does not contribute on only Japanese supercentenarians, so Vivexdino is not a single-purpose account. In an American supercentenarian AfD or a British supercentenarian AfD, would you would discard an established editor for "contributes on American subjects" or "contributes to British subjects"?
Vivexdino ( talk · contribs) wrote, "This has been discussed before. Plenty of sources to cover notability". I agree that "This has been discussed before" is not a policy-based argument for retention. But "Plenty of sources to cover notability" is a policy-based argument for retention because Vivexdino reviewed the sources already present in the article and found them to be sufficient to establish notability. How is Vivexdino's argument just saying "She's notable"?
One of the "delete" editors did just say "Not notable" without discussing the sources, but you did not discard that argument. Another was just a "per nom" argument but you did not discard that argument either.
None of the "delete" participants addressed the international coverage in reliable sources I presented.
I do not think your close accurately evaluates the consensus based on the strengths of the arguments. But for the reasons I discussed here, I will not be taking your close to DRV because past supercentenarian DRVs have been contentious and it is not a good use of time since readers will be well served regardless of whether Nabi Tajima's biography is in a standalone article at Nabi Tajima or is in a section at List of Japanese supercentenarians#Nabi Tajima.
At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Young (longevity claims researcher) (2nd nomination) in 2015, I wrote an overview of Young's life and work. I included a strong notability assertion: " Carl Bialik of The Wall Street Journal wrote that Young's "work and that of other researchers' has helped to create a new branch of demography: Statistics about the world's best agers."" Despite this work, the article was redirected anyway. If that article was not a longevity topic, it likely would have been kept. Since then, I have not expanded longevity biographies. Given what happened with the Robert Young article, I don't think that further work on Nabi Tajima will change editors' minds. A recreation likely would result in another AfD that ends in "delete". My preferred approach is to merge to a section at List of Japanese supercentenarians#Nabi Tajima so that this does not go to AfD again.
I do not understand why longevity is so contentious of a topic. There is an arbitration case for it in 2010 ( Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Longevity). And two admin resignations related to longevity DRVs in 2018. In any case, thank you again for further explaining your close and letting me share my thoughts about this topic on your talk page.
Thank you for making a comment there. I am sure that DBX is clearly editing with POV across multiple subjects. See his recent creation of Pakistan administered Kashmir, which used to be a long term redirect. Qualitist ( talk) 12:58, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
Since the article is continuously disrupted by IPs, causing confusion and other problems, it would probably be of help if semi-protection was applied there after the full-protection expires. Btw, as you intervened in the dispute, it would be good if you politely asked FkpCascais to stop claiming that I and/or the other editor involved in the dispute are "punk", "newbie" and "colleague". Cheers, Ktrimi991 ( talk) 22:42, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
Hello Black Kite. The case request for arbitration, Arbitrator BU Rob13 at WP:ARCA, has been declined by the committee with many citing it "should be treated like any similar complaint, and other forms of dispute resolution pursued first." For the Arbitration Committee, Mkdw talk 19:23, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
Hi, regarding this [1], lack of removal rationale in an edit summary is not a justification for restoring bad edits. I kindly suggest you read the edit before undoing. Thanks, — kashmīrī TALK 01:07, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
Is this considered an appropriate comment by an admin nowadays? “Go away or I will replace you with a very small shell script”. Also I do want to apologize for posting my issue about JzG in the wrong area but he was being very argumentative on his talk page. - SanAnMan ( talk) 02:24, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
Hi Black Kite. Someone at WP:RFPP pointed out that this page used to be indefinitely semiprotected, so I changed the protection to indefinite. If you disagree, please adjust. Note that one of the IP ranges being used was globally blocked for a year in July 2018 by User:Ruslik0. EdJohnston ( talk) 17:17, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
You asked me to remind you about semi-protecting the Skanderbeg article. After the full-protection expired, reverting has continued, and maybe will continue in the coming days. One editor continues to change the stable version [2] although there is opposition to his proposal on the talk page and the editor was warned by you when you applied the full-protection [3]. So a new full-protection might be needed. Cheers, Ktrimi991 ( talk) 07:27, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
You're were one step ahead of me. Sorry. :) Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 21:04, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
Any action required? Seems alright to me. Cheers. :) Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 21:05, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
would it not be better to redact the decidedly detestable parts and keep the legitimately valid arguments?--
Dlohcierekim (
talk) 15:31, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
Belay my last. user now blocked by CU.--
Dlohcierekim (
talk)
15:36, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
![]() |
Austral season's greetings |
Tuck into this! We've made about three of these in the last few days for various festivities. Supermarkets are stuffed with cheap berries. Season's greetings! Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 22:33, 24 December 2018 (UTC) |
I need to ask you a Q Kgm2019 ( talk) 22:01, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
( Kgm2019 ( talk))is it possible to message you privately? —Preceding undated comment added 22:12, 5 January 2019 (UTC) ( Kgm2019 ( talk) 22:15, 5 January 2019 (UTC))is it possible to message you privately
Plzz help me to create a page ...a talk page Kgm2019 ( talk) 22:25, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
![]() |
You obviously need more caffeine because it took you 3 minutes to block WesleyFricks. This will make you more alert in the future. ;) ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:00, 14 January 2019 (UTC) |
Re: this it might be useful to link to the redlinks where the deleted edits lie? I've been able to find some of them, but it took me a while just clicking through. I normally don't mind, but because Alaa is involved and he can view them too (as a steward) it might make it easier for him since it isn't his home project or language, and also help other en.wiki admins click through. If it's too much work feel free to ignore me :) I'd normally add them myself in a separate post, but about to run out the door and I also didn't want to add too much. Hope all is well. TonyBallioni ( talk) 19:46, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
On 19 January 2019, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Windsor Davies, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 21:42, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
It is not your opinion to tell me what to do. You are not an admin either. I never added J.D. Gibbs after that. I only added Mason Lowe. Pretty soon it will be notable to add Mason Lowe or not. Matt Campbell ( talk) 01:19, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
I don't think I saw the rules. Is there a page on it? Matt Campbell ( talk) 01:29, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Does the Wikipedia:In the news/candidates article count? Because they post notable deaths on there as well. Matt Campbell ( talk) 16:50, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Pretty soon we should add Boo to the list as soon as possible. Matt Campbell ( talk) 00:09, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Also forgot to mention that you erased his name after I typed it in. Then you said "Seriously?" Matt Campbell ( talk) 00:22, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Black Kite, I would propose that you revert the content of the Frankfurt School article to the stable version, pending discussion of the disputed material on the Talk page. I have given my reasoning there, but it amounts to (1) in a BRD cycle, the stable version is to remain in place pending discussion (except in cases of BRP violations or COPYVIO, which this is not), and (2) the recent Deletion review found that, while the Cultural Marxism article should remain deleted, sourced discussion of the issue is appropriately found on the Frankfurt School article. The removal of this content appears to have been contrary to the Deletion review finding even though the deletor cited the DR in one of their edit summaries for the deletion.
As I've said elsewhere, I don't have an axe to grind on the substantive issue (and the 2014 close was a good one, all things considered). But as a strong supporter of BRD as a procedural norm, it bothers me that you chose to protect the non-stable version of the article. Newimpartial ( talk) 14:44, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
I'm well aware that this isn't about blocking anyone, but I couldn't help but notice some parallels between 2012 and now. Floq's right though. You made the point about holding others to certain civility standards while engaging in uncivil rhetoric, you'll get neither a retraction nor an apology, but it's on record. There's nothing further to be gained here. MLauba ( Talk) 17:45, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
You do good work, and I appreciate standing on principle... but that case request is just going to get declined and make everyone more irritated at each other than they already were. 28bytes ( talk) 19:25, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
Can you please change this to no consensus. We have found hard to prove that NOPAGE does not apply. We have provided numerous sources stating her lifestyle and gives her life significant coverage. The most important thing is that she is the third oldest person ever lived. I believe we can make a strong argument that top ten oldest people should have pages can you please reconsider. Also to note I counted the votes there was two socks MarkAQuinn in favor of deleting and Julia Kinsley in favor of keeping. Cunard provided sources which shows significant coverage was did not even get a chance to include Japanese sources. Valoem talk contrib 19:37, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
I do not understand why "contributes on Japanese subjects" is a valid supporting reason to discard an editor's vote. Vivexdino is an established editor who contributes primarily to Japanese subjects. Vivexdino does not contribute on only Japanese supercentenarians, so Vivexdino is not a single-purpose account. In an American supercentenarian AfD or a British supercentenarian AfD, would you would discard an established editor for "contributes on American subjects" or "contributes to British subjects"?
Vivexdino ( talk · contribs) wrote, "This has been discussed before. Plenty of sources to cover notability". I agree that "This has been discussed before" is not a policy-based argument for retention. But "Plenty of sources to cover notability" is a policy-based argument for retention because Vivexdino reviewed the sources already present in the article and found them to be sufficient to establish notability. How is Vivexdino's argument just saying "She's notable"?
One of the "delete" editors did just say "Not notable" without discussing the sources, but you did not discard that argument. Another was just a "per nom" argument but you did not discard that argument either.
None of the "delete" participants addressed the international coverage in reliable sources I presented.
I do not think your close accurately evaluates the consensus based on the strengths of the arguments. But for the reasons I discussed here, I will not be taking your close to DRV because past supercentenarian DRVs have been contentious and it is not a good use of time since readers will be well served regardless of whether Nabi Tajima's biography is in a standalone article at Nabi Tajima or is in a section at List of Japanese supercentenarians#Nabi Tajima.
At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Young (longevity claims researcher) (2nd nomination) in 2015, I wrote an overview of Young's life and work. I included a strong notability assertion: " Carl Bialik of The Wall Street Journal wrote that Young's "work and that of other researchers' has helped to create a new branch of demography: Statistics about the world's best agers."" Despite this work, the article was redirected anyway. If that article was not a longevity topic, it likely would have been kept. Since then, I have not expanded longevity biographies. Given what happened with the Robert Young article, I don't think that further work on Nabi Tajima will change editors' minds. A recreation likely would result in another AfD that ends in "delete". My preferred approach is to merge to a section at List of Japanese supercentenarians#Nabi Tajima so that this does not go to AfD again.
I do not understand why longevity is so contentious of a topic. There is an arbitration case for it in 2010 ( Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Longevity). And two admin resignations related to longevity DRVs in 2018. In any case, thank you again for further explaining your close and letting me share my thoughts about this topic on your talk page.
Thank you for making a comment there. I am sure that DBX is clearly editing with POV across multiple subjects. See his recent creation of Pakistan administered Kashmir, which used to be a long term redirect. Qualitist ( talk) 12:58, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
Since the article is continuously disrupted by IPs, causing confusion and other problems, it would probably be of help if semi-protection was applied there after the full-protection expires. Btw, as you intervened in the dispute, it would be good if you politely asked FkpCascais to stop claiming that I and/or the other editor involved in the dispute are "punk", "newbie" and "colleague". Cheers, Ktrimi991 ( talk) 22:42, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
Hello Black Kite. The case request for arbitration, Arbitrator BU Rob13 at WP:ARCA, has been declined by the committee with many citing it "should be treated like any similar complaint, and other forms of dispute resolution pursued first." For the Arbitration Committee, Mkdw talk 19:23, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
Hi, regarding this [1], lack of removal rationale in an edit summary is not a justification for restoring bad edits. I kindly suggest you read the edit before undoing. Thanks, — kashmīrī TALK 01:07, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
Is this considered an appropriate comment by an admin nowadays? “Go away or I will replace you with a very small shell script”. Also I do want to apologize for posting my issue about JzG in the wrong area but he was being very argumentative on his talk page. - SanAnMan ( talk) 02:24, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
Hi Black Kite. Someone at WP:RFPP pointed out that this page used to be indefinitely semiprotected, so I changed the protection to indefinite. If you disagree, please adjust. Note that one of the IP ranges being used was globally blocked for a year in July 2018 by User:Ruslik0. EdJohnston ( talk) 17:17, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
You asked me to remind you about semi-protecting the Skanderbeg article. After the full-protection expired, reverting has continued, and maybe will continue in the coming days. One editor continues to change the stable version [2] although there is opposition to his proposal on the talk page and the editor was warned by you when you applied the full-protection [3]. So a new full-protection might be needed. Cheers, Ktrimi991 ( talk) 07:27, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
You're were one step ahead of me. Sorry. :) Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 21:04, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
Any action required? Seems alright to me. Cheers. :) Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 21:05, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
would it not be better to redact the decidedly detestable parts and keep the legitimately valid arguments?--
Dlohcierekim (
talk) 15:31, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
Belay my last. user now blocked by CU.--
Dlohcierekim (
talk)
15:36, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
![]() |
Austral season's greetings |
Tuck into this! We've made about three of these in the last few days for various festivities. Supermarkets are stuffed with cheap berries. Season's greetings! Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 22:33, 24 December 2018 (UTC) |
I need to ask you a Q Kgm2019 ( talk) 22:01, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
( Kgm2019 ( talk))is it possible to message you privately? —Preceding undated comment added 22:12, 5 January 2019 (UTC) ( Kgm2019 ( talk) 22:15, 5 January 2019 (UTC))is it possible to message you privately
Plzz help me to create a page ...a talk page Kgm2019 ( talk) 22:25, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
![]() |
You obviously need more caffeine because it took you 3 minutes to block WesleyFricks. This will make you more alert in the future. ;) ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:00, 14 January 2019 (UTC) |
Re: this it might be useful to link to the redlinks where the deleted edits lie? I've been able to find some of them, but it took me a while just clicking through. I normally don't mind, but because Alaa is involved and he can view them too (as a steward) it might make it easier for him since it isn't his home project or language, and also help other en.wiki admins click through. If it's too much work feel free to ignore me :) I'd normally add them myself in a separate post, but about to run out the door and I also didn't want to add too much. Hope all is well. TonyBallioni ( talk) 19:46, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
On 19 January 2019, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Windsor Davies, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 21:42, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
It is not your opinion to tell me what to do. You are not an admin either. I never added J.D. Gibbs after that. I only added Mason Lowe. Pretty soon it will be notable to add Mason Lowe or not. Matt Campbell ( talk) 01:19, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
I don't think I saw the rules. Is there a page on it? Matt Campbell ( talk) 01:29, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Does the Wikipedia:In the news/candidates article count? Because they post notable deaths on there as well. Matt Campbell ( talk) 16:50, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Pretty soon we should add Boo to the list as soon as possible. Matt Campbell ( talk) 00:09, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Also forgot to mention that you erased his name after I typed it in. Then you said "Seriously?" Matt Campbell ( talk) 00:22, 21 January 2019 (UTC)