![]() | 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. |
Mess around with the guy in shades all you like - don't mess around with the girl in gloves! ( talk) 02:08, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2009 Bulacan Factory Explosion (Santa Maria, Philippines) 4 keeps, 2 deletes, you closed as delete on Apr 30, without an explanation. I think that in a case like this, when you are going to overrule apparent consensus, it might be a good idea to say why at the close. Could you explain a little further now? DGG ( talk) 13:08, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Laurent ( talk) 20:46, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm glad the closer of this AfD turned out to be you. I would appreciate your considering changing the close from "no consensus" to straight "keep", or permit me to go to DRV, for the following reasons (IMHO):
If you ask why I would press for this, "icing on the cake" as it were, when I already succeeded in retaining the article, the reason is that, with some frank emotion, I'm done with this exact same nominator putting up fallacious and puffy arguments time after time and having the articles marked "NCDK" as if his arguments had equal validity with the keep arguments, and this AfD is a particularly telling case of that approach. (His other approach has been to nominate and obtain a deletion when I'm not around.) I had prepared to go to DRV regardless because I suspected that the "NCDK" easy route would be very tempting to the closing admin, but please consider that in this case there really is a clear difference in argumentative weight. If you have any better way to curb the behavior of this nominator, who has been a virtual WP:SPA on this POV-pushing for the past month, or if you feel there really was equal weight from both sides (!), I'm all ears. JJB 02:02, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2009. 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. Burzmali ( talk) 17:00, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Lookin good. We need to think of a way though to do something about all those unsightly lists in the article though. Dr. Blofeld White cat 11:03, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Dunno. LOL looks like Derren Brown magically placed himself in an Elizabethan paiting. See File:Cobbe portrait of Shakespeare.jpg Hehe Dr. Blofeld White cat 14:11, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
You closed the AfD on Stoddard House in the wrong way, in my opinion, by deleting it. I thot it was going to be kept although material in it would be merged into Oyster Bay History Walk and perhaps it would have been replaced by a redirect eventually. Well, anyhow, now could you please provide a copy of the article and of its Talk page (which I believe should have included an OTRS verification of its content)? Thanks in advance, doncram ( talk) 13:59, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm a bit confused how you could close the Footy tipping AFD as redirect, when it was only one very persistent nominator and the first respondent saying merge, myself and one other saying keep. Filter out the nominators cross examination of everyone else's opinion and it's not very well discussed - only 3 other opinions. Are you willing or able to relist it or do I need to take it to DRV? The-Pope ( talk) 14:42, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to request the undeletion of the article on Sydney Rae White, which I believe has been prematurely deleted - I do not believe that the case for deletion was proven conclusively, and that notability can still be proven (I was still working on trying to find supporting references to prove notability...). Emma white20 ( talk) 14:50, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Abd and JzG/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Abd and JzG/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Hersfold ( t/ a/ c) 02:09, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to ask you to grant me rollback rights.
The reason I turn to you is because I saw your name in Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to grant rollback requests and remembered seeing you recently closing some AfD (if I remember correctly).
The reason I'd like to apply for rollback rights is that in the course of my regular wikignoming I revert many edits (generally at least ten a day) that are vandalism or clearly unconstructive, and often these are a series of several edits made by the same user.
I'll be watching this page for your answer. Debresser ( talk) 00:15, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
In view of your silence, I have placed a request at Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions/Rollback#User:Debresser. Debresser ( talk) 17:56, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Sydney Rae White. 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.
I am a fan of the film and Mr. Musatov was a professor at my University. Why is his page suddenly being railroaded and terminated? I am going to rebuild it. He deserves it. Thanks! Solsticefan ( talk) 10:01, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
And people say Sundays are supposed to be relaxing. I've had rather a stressful day on here today!! How iz work these days? Dr. Blofeld White cat 21:34, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
If you don't believe it to be sufficiently common, please stop by Wikipedia_talk:BLP#Premature_BLP1E_AfD.27s and read the discussion and consensus there. Your comments and suggestions there will be welcome, as will any sort of counterevidence you care to present. I'm at a loss to find any recent BLP AfD where this rule of thumb would NOT have held true. Jclemens ( talk) 21:35, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
I would ask you to reconsider your close on this AFD. Two of the three people to argue there argued in favour of keeping a standalone article, and only one asked for it to be redirected. I don't see how this can be considered a "COnsensus ... for the mateiral to be included elsewhere." Even aside from the consensus, redirecting to the Australian Football article is very misleading, because as the article itself said, tipping is conducted on most football codes in Australia, including rugby league, rugby union and A-League football. If it must be a redirect, it shouldn't be a redirect to where you pointed it. I hope you will reconsider your close. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 09:02, 29 April 2009 (UTC).
Congratulations mate. Dr. Blofeld White cat 12:49, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
P.S. I did start a facebook account under Blofeld so I could see what some of the people who I was in school with are up to these days. I'm not a fan of facebook thats why I never use it! Dr. Blofeld White cat 09:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Yeah me neither. I was wondering if you know how to get an automatic index by default sorting for categories. Is there a way you can get the last name of the page name to automatically feature first in the category sorting? Dr. Blofeld White cat 10:10, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi Fritzpoll I wanted to let you know that Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/FritzpollBot 2 is labeled as needing your comment. Please visit the above link to reply to the requests. Thanks! -- BAGBot Talk 17:32, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
I appreciate you trying to help out with this dispute between ikip and AMiB, because it's fundamentally a dispute between inclusionists and deletionists. Both sides have trouble accepting the advice of anyone in the middle, let alone people on either side.
How do you think we should go about getting some independent feedback, and preventing the discussions from spiralling downward into a WP:BATTLEGROUND between inclusionists and deletionists? Randomran ( talk) 20:02, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
My BAG membership nomination passed today at 8/0/0 unanimously. I sincerely thank you for participating in my BAG request. I appreciate all the kind words that I received and will endeavor to justify the trust the WP community has placed in me....Have a nice day. :-) -- Tinu Cherian - 09:49, 11 May 2009 (UTC) | ![]() |
what happened to the original intention to create articles for every place in the world? I thought it was a great idea, and it seems the bot was approved, however no action seems to have been taken? what is the deal? regards Suicup ( talk) 12:00, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Can you make a decision and close this please? Dr. Blofeld ( talk) 14:00, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. It's due for DYK in a few days time and it needn't have gone on any longer. just another example of how so many people confuse notability with lack of content. If I hadn't have stepped in it would have been snowball deleted.. Dr. Blofeld ( talk) 14:54, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Don't know why you would get slated, the outcome was clear. If you closed the Bulgaria-::Indonesia relations article now then you indeed might. Hey I've been asking for random images from flickr of late asking people to change the license. We now have an image for an article I started yesterday, Moni Gonia Monastery, Haifa Wehbe (which is EXTREMELY difficult to get a non commercial image of) and Charley Boorman, not one but several! Dr. Blofeld ( talk) 15:06, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Funnily Ikip I was about to ask Fritz the same thing, See User talk:John Carter#Bilateral relations. Dr. Blofeld ( talk) 15:29, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
The Barnstar of Peace | |
The Barnstar of Peace is awarded to users who have helped to resolve, peacefully, conflicts on Wikipedia.
This Barnstar is awarded to Fritzpoll for his tireless efforts on negotiating peace on Article Rescue Squadron. On behalf of not only the article rescue squadron, but also the new users who regularly have their contributions deleted, thank you for your dedication. Ikip ( talk) 14:25, 11 May 2009 (UTC) |
Hi, I wanted to ask you if it would be possible to quit the redirection from the article Alexis Grace. I think that it is a very reliable and notable person. Also all the other contestants have an article, why Alexis doesn`t have one? I would be grateful if you do this. Facha93 ( talk) 00:45, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Mind if I undelete this, in the interest of preserving historical discussions? It can be marked with {{
historical}}
or somesuch, but there's no need to remove the history from public view. Thanks.
seresin (
¡? )
00:46, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
While I cannot speak for all members, I certainly do not view you as "an enemy". That is why in my support in that thread, my appeal is that we not lose focus on our primary objective of rescuing articles, rather than on accusing anyone of anything. I and I hope my colleagues do not and should not regard your good faith comments there as adversarial. Best, -- A Nobody My talk 17:23, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi Fritzpoll I wanted to let you know that Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/FritzpollBot 2 is labeled as needing your comment. Please visit the above link to reply to the requests. Thanks! -- BAGBot Talk 04:15, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi Fritz - is there any chance I could ask you to close an old SFD? It's festering a little (the creator of the stubs is, a bit fractious, to put it politely), but both Pegship and Grutness have been involved in the debate so neither of them wants to close it and I also am active in the group so it's best somebody outside of the group closes it. It's at Wikipedia:Stub_types_for_deletion/Log/2009/April/19. Cheers. Dr. Blofeld ( talk) 20:11, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
OlYeller Talktome 15:11, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Can you please tell Abd to get off of my talk page and not return? I have given him carte blanche to file whatever motions or whatever he wants without notifing me - in fact, I have done this twice.
Abd must stop using my talk page, and he must stop now. Can you make this happen? Hipocrite ( talk) 18:43, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi Fritzpoll, I have a bot request that maybe you'd be interested in! (It's at least marginally related to the failed geobot, in that it targets expansion in areas that are systemically undercovered.) I've twice proposed at WP:BOTREQ a bot that would help fix up translation requests. The first time no one answered, and the second time LegoKTM said he'd do it but never did. :( (When I followed up on his talk page he didn't reply.) If you have spare time and an inclination to help, it would be much appreciated. The last bot request is at Wikipedia:Bot_requests/Archive_26#Fixing_broken_translation_requests. Calliopejen1 ( talk) 19:18, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
{{transreq|fr|articletitle}}
- hopefully changes like this would be pretty trivial in terms of thinking about the bot. If you think not let me know so I can decide about the template merger first!
Calliopejen1 (
talk)
01:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC)The content of Nagatachō Strawberry could be merged to Mayu Sakai. Could you restore the old revisions, restore to my user space, email me the content, or just paste it in Mayu Sakai? -- Apoc2400 ( talk) 22:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi, good day! Just want you to know that I salute you for weighing things without prejudice just like what you did on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Masalipit. :) I realized I should not be hasty to vote for a delete or a keep just because it is on AFD. I should have voted for a redirect because this is an option too. You have become my inspiration when I read your verdict to redirect this article to its parent article.
I hope I can be an inspiration to others too, someday! :) Again, thanks for that and kudos to you! ax ( talk) 14:35, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Why was this put up for AFD? Has wikipedia improved since you made the decision to redirect here. What was the point in doing this? Now we have no information and a faulty link in the main article leading nowhere. If nothing existed on it, why was there so mucb information available on it which seemd like government sources? I see there is some sort of agreement than barangays are non notable on wikipedia. I wonder why it is then that we can have long well referenced on other similar sized areas of other countries. Seems odd to me that these should be exempt. Might be time to adress the inherent notability of places again as I don't see why the Philippines is unique. Dr. Blofeld White cat 20:15, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Exactly. The inherent notability of geographical places needs addressing because previously the geo article just needed to be verifiable conform to notability. I'm not saying I agree with either notion as content and sources are the real decider to notability but we seriously need to address this as localities in the Philippines should not be considered any different to anywhere else in the world. When we have full articles on things like old barns in tiny villages in the U.S. it makes one wonder why one is notable yet an area of another country isn't. Dr. Blofeld White cat 20:40, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree Fritz. But the fact is in general a lot of people consider places "inherently notable" and most geo articles are kept if verifiable, evne if sources are lacking. Personally I don't agree with inherent notability either as I said it is content and coverage in reliable sources which makes an article worthy. The problem of course is that we may have hundreds of sources about an old barn in the states yet may not have a single rleiable online source about a district in the developing world for sinance. Potentially a lot could be written about most places but in light of this particular AFD and the decision to redirect I think this issue really needs to be looked into. All I know is that encyclopedia suitable information exists for this place and whoever wrote it found the information somewhere. Did anybody ask the creator the source the article first? Dr. Blofeld White cat 20:48, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
I dunno, its long been a very obsure part of wikipedia policy. People generally take for granted that all geographical articles are notable, this is why we have articles on tiny fishing hamlets in Nunavut and Nova Scotia etc and in the UK etc. The fact is that it is only "potentially" we could have articles about any villages or hamlet worldwide and some places you could probably indeed summarise in the parent municipal article etc. We have articles on sub districts of most world cities and a lot of towns, 2,235 people apparently live in this district so how do we make a formal decision over notability when we have articles on dwellings with 3 people and articles on barns like Smith Tobacco Barn? If it is based purely on rleiable publications covering the topic then obviously the main issue is uneven access to knowledge with the developing world against "westernized" nations. Dr. Blofeld White cat 20:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Yeah the problem is that in the end a tiny barn in the middle of nowhere in the states which has sources and registry as a historic place is kept whilst a district with 2235 people living it is considered not because of the uneven lack of access to knowledge. Is this barn considered more notable than this barangay, a human settlement with over 2000 people? Tough subject to evaluate. The argument against having articles on barangays seems to be largely about they are "too small" to be worthy of note and lack of sources online anyway. The thing is we have pretty decent articles on tiny hamlets far small than these barangays which have an abundance of sources and even tiny buildings like windmills and barns etc but these aren't considered too small to be worthy of note. In the end it does come down to systematic bias as I'd bet my kitty's right knee that in the real world a place with 2235 people could easily be made notable on here if the sources existed. If I managed to visit a library in the Philippines for instance now and found a number of reliable publications to write a full article on it would the article then be considered of note? I remember somebody also brought up the subject of Frazioni in Italy, villages in communes. In a lot of cases it is definately better to fill out the articles on these communes fand municipalities in places like philippines and Italy first before creating articles about villages within them but as wikipedia grows I can see us having articles on them eventually. It would seem to be dependent on web coverage and the amount of users working on developing such topics. Dr. Blofeld White cat 20:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Yeah I know. It wasn't so much a decision based on notable areas though it was more on starting articles with adequate sources and information which was the problem, particularly for developing countries. If we do propose to revamp the criteria it will have to go on hold as right now I have an FAC on my hands and anticipate quite some work in next few days and am also have ing Internet connection problems darn it! Hope you are well. Dr. Blofeld White cat 23:27, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
If I may add to the discussion, I think the fact that there are thousands upon thousands of articles on U.S. places is because of Rambot's work back in 2003. As such, this "inherent notability" of populated places is now partly based on fait accompli of this bot work. I seriously think that the presence of such U.S. articles has been strongly used to argue for inherent notability of populated places elsewhere in the world regardless of whether they pass
WP:N or not.
Smith Tobacco Barn is a poor example since it is part of the U.S. Registry of Historical Places which provides a good reason as to this building's notability.
As for the concern that there is now an uneven coverage of similarly sized places across the world, the argument that we increase coverage in the developing world can be turned upside down: why don't we instead decrease the coverage in the Western world and only retain the truly notable ones? In addition, the WikiProject Philippines community has an uncodified consensus that only notable barangays should have articles. Filipinos would be one of the best judges at whether barangays, in general, are notable and we have decided that they are not "inherently notable".
-- seav ( talk) 12:40, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
I knew I supported your RfA for a reason... oh wait, I opposed didn't I ;-) Anyway, I wanted to say that I think this was the right call.--- I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 19:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi there. I'm not looking to get contentious, but I was hoping I could get some clarity on why you felt the sources provided did not satisfy WP:RS.
Thanks. — Bdb484 ( talk) 20:51, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
So when is your wikibreak going to be over?--- I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 21:38, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
I disagree with your close of that Afd - I think that if a national census agency keeps track of these places, as the US does with census-designated places that were mass created by bot without any sourcing but the census data on the shared notion that these places are notable, per se. If a national government tracks these entities (barangays in this case), they are notable enough. I suggest that you re-evaluate your close to keep. Enjoy your wikibreak. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 03:54, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
The odd thing about the barangays though is that most of Wp:Philiippines or whatever project they have running seem to be very against having articles on them. A rough math is that if the municipalitiy covers 231 km2 and there are 49 barangays then on average a barangay will be 4.7 km 2. Pretty small, equivalent to a small district of any town. Dr. Blofeld White cat 16:18, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
That's what I thought Polaron. We of course have articles on main districts of major cities and towns but not sure about the status on sub neighbourhoods in relatively unknown municipalities in such countries from a world viewpoint. Perhaps the fact that Filipinos on here or people who live in the Philippines indicate they aren't notable maybe we should trust their judgement, after all a lot of them are on wikipedia to oftne improve our coverage of the country and if they disapprove of having them then maybe there is a clear reason. They are mentioned in government publications which as Carlos says is normally a claim to notability but not easy to judge. Dr. Blofeld White cat 17:02, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Masalipit. 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. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 19:07, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi there. I'm not looking to get contentious, but I was hoping I could get some clarity on why you felt the sources provided did not satisfy WP:RS.
Sorry. — Rihanoooo1191 ( talk) 14:53, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, per your kind offer at the AfD, please userfy the article to User:MichaelQSchmidt/sandbox/Sergio D. Acosta. I expect to be able to find more and get this back to main pages in a month of three. Will I have to go throuh DVR since I will be then recreating a deleted article? I'd hate the drama that could arise. Or will it serve to have you recheck it at that time? Thank you, Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:45, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Eugene Krabs ( talk) 14:37, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
I highly disagree with your decision to close List of Latin American Jews as "keep" instead of "no consensus," and disagree even more vehemently with the closing comment "No deletion argument referring to our policies or guidelines, and arguments that only seem to be extensions of WP:IDONTLIKEIT."
I would wish you to review the closure more closely and mark it as either a "no consensus" or re-open it for an extended period of time with more neutral participants - or at least participants who do not WP:WIKISTALK me to AfDs simply to !vote opposite: ( Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Badagnani). Please see the long history of problems WP:V and WP:RS with both User:Hmains and User:Badagnani on List of X-American articles.
What guidelines/policies are discussed in my deletion argument:
Now what guidelines/policies were discussed by the "keep" arguments? None, they boil down to...
Please consider re-opening this Afd or at least reviewing it in more detail. There were very few participants to begin with, typically an Afd is given an extension period when that situation comes about. Bulldog123 21:08, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
{{
doing}}
- reviewing this, and will make a statement shortly
Fritzpoll (
talk)
09:33, 6 June 2009 (UTC)In reading the AFD, did you notice that many of the participants failed to understand the use British academic titles? British understatement results in titles like Senior Lecturer, Tutor, etc. being quite prestigious. Also he authored three notable books not one (all published in 3rd party sources and found in libraries around the world). Publishing this many books is in fact somewhat rare among academics and qualifies per WP:CREATIVE. Would you consider closing it as no consensus? -- Firefly322 ( talk) 22:00, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
HI,
THIS KWW EDITOR APPEARS TO BE ATTACKING MARC MYSTERIO, HIS ARTICLES, AND SONGS FOR NO REASON...
THE CHARTS NOTED ARE NOTABLE AND INCLUDED ACROSS WIKI...
THE LET LOOSE SONG ARTICLE WAS JUST DELETED, AND WITHOUT JUST CAUSE...
IT LEGITAMATELY CHARTED IN UKRAINE... HOWEVER, THESE BOZOS THAT KNOW NOTHING OF MUSIC BUSINESS WANT TO STIR SHIT...
FDR CHART, THAT IT... THE ONLY CHART IN UKRAINE..
NOW, THEY WISH TO ATTACK HIS OTHER SONG, ROLL WIT IT...
THAT SONG CHARTED ON THE CANADIAN CLUB AND DANCE NATIONAL CHART, WHICH IS COMPILED BY ZIP DJ...
I DONT HAVE TIME OR CARE AT THIS POINT... ILL LEAVE IT WITH YOU...
IM IN THE MUSIC BIZ FOR 20 YEARS, AND NEVER DEAL WITH SUCH A BULLSHIT SITE AS THIS ONE THAT PEOPLE LEND CREDIBILITY TO THAT DELETE A JUSTFULLY NOTABLE SONG AS LET LOOSE...
Hi there, I just wanted to bring up an issue with your decision to Close the Tamil Protest AfD by merging all the articles into the main. While I would mostly agree with your opinion that there is a consensus to merge the articles for the protests in each country, there seems to have also been a strong thread of opinion that the 2009 Tamil protests in Canada and possibly the British article were large enough to stand on their own and should not be merged into the main page. So, I'd just like to ask that you take a second look at the discussion in the AfD and reconsider blanking and redirecting the Canadian article. Thank you Mike McGregor (Can) ( talk) 16:06, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
{{
mainarticle}}
link in the central article. If there is silence or agreement after a week or so, feel free to revert the redirection, and link to a diff of this statement of mine as justification. I know this means a few more days in limbo, but is much less dramatic than the alternatives, though you are free to pursue
a review of the close if you wish, but I'm unwilling to change it at this time. Hope that helps, and I'm happy to discuss further
Fritzpoll (
talk)
16:49, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Hello, I've been contributing to the article much during the last several days, and I can say there's definitely much more data from reliable sources on the subject that that can be presented in one paragraph of the current redirect. The problem with WP:FORK argument is that the article Discrimination against ethnic minorities in Estonia gave more sourced data and analysis than the current section. Maybe we could instead rename the article as it is into something like " Rights of ethnic minorities in Estonia" and then continue the work? For the AFD discussion started the same day the article was created, and there was just absolutely not enough time for the completion of the article. How can we just through out a dozen of sources saying the minorities rights in a country are limited? FeelSunny ( talk) 10:05, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for finally closing the debate. It was getting a bit out of hand. ( Igny ( talk) 14:03, 8 June 2009 (UTC))
... that I have not notified you of three deletion reviews. All three are on your page. I am not sure why you don't see them displayed. I can see them, the last one is just two messages up, can't you see it?. Notifications:
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Azerbaijan–Spain relations. 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. )
An editor has asked for a deletion review of New Zealand – Pakistan relations. 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. )
As you can see, I disagree with you, but this whole process seems byzantine even by wikipedia standards. If i've interpreted the situation correctly, my proposal seems the best outcome for now. [6] Bali ultimate ( talk) 14:42, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
I think this was a very thoughtful closure. I appreciate that you clearly and fully expressed your reasoning, which I believe will prevent unnecessary drama over what could have been a controversial close. لenna vecia 12:41, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Looks like we both had the same idea. (I fixed it) -- Ron Ritzman ( talk) 13:18, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
The need to express oneself clearly and concisely is an age-old principle and is not some newfangled idea of the internet age. William Strunk said it best, almost a century ago:
Refusing to make even a minimal effort to express oneself clearly and concisely is a mark of arrogance toward the reader. Short Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 16:36, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Why did you get rid of this content = http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Geography_of_the_Former_Republic_of_Serbian_Krajina&oldid=293520537 Geography is not just physical landforms. This entity had unique population, political and economic characteristics that have nothing to do with modern day croatia. Population Geography does change. Geography is not just landforms like the person was suggesting in the talk page. ( LAz17 ( talk) 13:31, 9 June 2009 (UTC)).
Since you got so much flack over some of your other closures of these AfDs, I want you to know that as nominator I think you made the correct decision in that there was no consensus. Thanks for being willing to close these and for doing a good job of it. Drawn Some ( talk) 13:42, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
I think your close was quite appropriate, but how long do you think it will last before it's overturned? Who then was a gentleman? ( talk) 19:57, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
If you have some time at some point (there is no hurry) I would be interested in getting another opinion on a couple of things that have been bothering me. I'm just trying to devine the societal perspectives on a couple of things.
You are familiar enough with the wikipedia user WMC topic banning Abd and Hipocrite. I am not sure if you followed the actions related to JzG banning Jed Rothwell. These are all Cold Fusion related dramas.
I had asked wikipedia user WMC some clarifying questions here. He responded but not necessarily in a complete way (i.e. some points he didn't address). Given our mutual history I don't really want to belabor my points there so I am looking for other points of view.
One of the things that concerns me in both the Jed Rothwell case and now the Abd and Hipocrite case is that in both cases the bans were imposed with little or no community discussion or formal assessment of consensus to justify the bans. I have contended that if these bans are truly bans in the WP:BAN sense of a ban that they should be duly recorded at WP:RESTRICT as such. This seems the normal and sensible thing to do and yet both JzG and now wikipedia user WMC have declined to take that step.
Do you believe that these Administrative actions (and I mean this generally, these two cases are simply examples that I know of) truly do constitute a ban in the WP:BAN sense of such a thing? And if they are why are the Administrators shying away from recording them? Any thoughts?
As I said, no need to hurry with a response, or even to reply at all if you are too busy. I am just reviewing various opinions as a means discerning the proper way to view these issues within the context of Administrator norms and policies. Your input would be welcome.
Thanks,
-- GoRight ( talk) 22:26, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi, you have recently deleted an article P.R.Harikumar based on the consensus at AfD. I think the article you have deleted was a redirect to the article P. R. Harikumar which was the target article intended to get deleted at AfD. The mistake would have happened because while the AfD was in progress I have moved the article P.R.Harikumar to P. R. Harikumar per naming convention. I am sorry that I failed to notify this in the AfD. Salih (talk) 05:54, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
I disagree with your closure of the Poppler (software) AFD. There seems to be no consensus to redirect to xpdf. Only a single editor called for that. Further, User:Gnepets began to clean the article up today. He added at least one third-party source re. poppler. The closure seems premature to me. Can you please revert this redirect and relist discussion so that we can discuss Gnepets's constructive changes? -- Karnesky ( talk) 21:11, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
I wanted to throw a couple lines in the Transporter 3 article that Natalya Rudakova was redirected to (more than likely under the Cast section). Is there an archive or history available to pull from? I don't know where to look and was hoping to pull a little bit of info and sources from any preserved text. Cptnono ( talk) 05:47, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm actually neutral on your proposal. You asked for feedback, you are getting it. Gigs ( talk) 12:53, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Scott Campbell (blogger). 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. Scott ( talk) 18:03, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
You should not have redirected that article. You may not agree with the outcome, and it may not be a "vote", but the overwhelming consensus from four attempts to delete the article have been to keep it. Only one or two people recommended a redirect, including the person who tried to delete it every time. You may not agree with the consensus, but Wikipedia works by consensus. Please do not redirect the article against consensus. Jayhawk of Justice ( talk) 18:03, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Congrats, you've been approved by the arbitration committee as one of the uninvolved admins to help settle Macedonia naming issues. The centralized discussion is at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Macedonia. The arbitration case final decision is at WP:ARBMAC2. See especially this remedy. Admins User:Shell Kinney and User:J.delanoy form the triumvirate with you. Thank you for your assistance. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:16, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi. You recently deleted the article Damon Vickers. Although the article was in the words of one person at AfD "vanispamisement," I think that the subject was unquestionably notable. Thus, I was wondering if you would be so kind as to userify the article for me so that I might source it properly and do my best on the NPOV problems. Thanks! Cool3 ( talk) 22:13, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
You wrote: The result was no consensus. Fritzpoll (talk) 20:28, 13 June 2009 (UTC) [edit] Justus Weiner
The result was six votes to delete and three to keep plus one weak keep. That is nearly two thirds in favor of deletion. What is consensus on Wikipedia?
Thanks.
Skywriter ( talk) 22:27, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, it does. Thanks. Skywriter ( talk) 20:04, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
User:Fritzpoll/Archive 5 has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, Peace, A record of your Day will always be kept here. |
For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:03, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Can you close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abdullah Al Hilali? Thanks Dr. Blofeld White cat 17:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Fritzpoll, I don't know if you are familiar with the history of ScienceApologists's spelling corrections to articles covered by his topic ban. The community, in that case, quite clearly considered that harmless edits, non-controversial, did not violate his ban, and multiple attempts were made at Arbitration Enforcement, by an editor probably cooperating with ScienceApologist, trying to make a point, to complain about spelling corrections. Nobody wanted to hear it. I later raised the issue of such edits complicating ban enforcement, and that's where self-reversion was suggested and discussed. I cleared it with an arbitrator before suggesting it to ScienceApologist, self-reverted edits that would violate many different policies are considered to not actually do so.
Thus "no edit" overstates the actual situation. As is typical on Wikipedia, there are exceptions to every rule. I have seen and tested -- inadvertently -- a situation where promptly reverting the edit of a banned user violated policy, for example.
Your closing implies there is a policy on this. I don't see it, nothing explicit. I'm going to try to make it explicit, so that there is no confusion over this: the reality is that policy doesn't cover the situation, as far as I can see, and, while it seemed that the community was united on this in actual practice, in the ScienceApologist case, it may depend on whose ox is being gored. I was blocked for doing much less than what he did with impunity. (His spelling corrections were harmless, but he was clearly, by a pattern of such edits, and by other disruption as well as declared intention, seeking to complicate ban enforcement, that's why self-reversion was suggested then, because it bypasses the enforcement problem as any kind of emergency. I've pointed out in one discussion that if a banned editor actually does this -- even a site-banned editor -- it can turn enforcement into productive edits, as someone reviewing the edits of a banned user sees these self-reverted edits, decides to look at them (not obligatory!) and sees a spelling correction to put in with a single undo.
I.e., site banned and blocked editor comes in as IP and makes a spelling correction, and states, with the edit, "will revert per site ban." Then, reverts with edit summary, "Reverting per ban of IveBeenNaughty."
Is this a ban violation that would lead to a lengthening of the ban? Is this block evasion? I would claim, no, not unless the edit itself was disruptive beyond being a technical evasion. In substance, it cooperates with the ban, and seeks to help with the project even while banned.
Most blocked and banned editors won't do this, to be sure, but this would allow that subclass of editors who really do want to help the project do so, and show cooperation.
We should nail this down to avoid contentious discussions in the future. Isolated harmless edits, not controversial in themselves, don't violate policy no matter how stringently we have banned the editor. And a self-reverted edit is doubly safe, and establishes a possibility of cooperation. That's what happened with editor User:PJHaseldine, who was banned from an article. He made quite a substantial edit, which he then self-reverted per my suggestion. A discussion ensued where most of his edit, I believe, was accepted. It was quite efficient, and has, I'm sure, improved communication there. I think he's continued to use this technique without a problem. -- Abd ( talk) 17:46, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi, you made a decision concerning the Justus Weiner page, one I did not necessarily agree with but accepted. I spent the last couple of days working hard on that article to improve it and all of my work has been disregarded with a revert back to an old version that has errors, is biased and has a litany of violations such as attacking another individual in a headline.
I have gone to the person in question who has continuously reverted my work for several weeks and have asked for discussion. There has been nothing but reverts.
My question to you is this. What's next? Should people who do not agree with the person who is reverting the article back to what he likes leave it alone, including the errors of fact, attacks on another individual and gross prejudice, or is there another way to approach this? Thanks. Skywriter ( talk) 20:00, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
In reading the AFD, did you notice that many of the participants failed to understand the use British academic titles? British understatement results in titles like Senior Lecturer, Tutor, etc. being quite prestigious. Also he authored three notable books not one (all published in 3rd party sources and found in libraries around the world). Publishing this many books is in fact somewhat rare among academics and qualifies per WP:CREATIVE. Would you consider closing it as no consensus? -- Firefly322 ( talk) 22:00, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Did you read my message? Dr. Blofeld White cat 10:46, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. Let's hope you also have some peace from the various things that come your way. Dr. Blofeld White cat 12:42, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Emailed. Dr. Blofeld White cat 13:42, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
You deleted the air gear kings and roads page. I was going to put the sources on it just have been really busy. All that information was about an anime and that took a very long time to create. Bring it back and I will fix it so it is to your "standards". Please bring it back. This Is Wikipedia as long as the information is correct there should be no porblem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.174.0.7 ( talk) 11:13, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for carefully explaining the issues to me Fritzpoll. I appreciate your efforts. Now Gwen Gale is vanishing my account, I am very happy and I will have no further cause to make requests. I thank you so much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.208.167.101 ( talk) 13:24, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
In Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion/Macedonia/main articles, could you please delete this [9] edit?
I base my request at Wikipedia:Talk#Behavior_that_is_unacceptable which states that users should not misrepresent other people. I have nothing against Taivo and I don't want a block on him or anything. But that post with a plethora of incorrect summaries that also attempts to falsely attest the driving force behind my contributions, does not give even the slightest amount of credit to the meaning of long conversations that I have engaged regarding to the quoted samples.
Thank you. Shadowmorph ^"^ 13:14, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Please have a look at this and this. I believe that Future Perfect and I should be able to resolve this like gentlemen, but if things get out of hand I would expect you to intervene to prevent incivility. -- Radjenef ( talk) 13:52, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia_talk:Centralized_discussion/Macedonia#Page_protected ASAP. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:13, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
19-June-09: I see that you deleted the disambiguation page " Designated", so I have assigned that title as a redirection page, instead. I did not continue discussion, once I realized that the AfD-page ( Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Designated) was violating WP policies, especially by using WP:Wikilawyering to deny the use of the word "designated" with multiple meanings. I really just wanted to see if anyone else could detect the tactics of "gaming the system" ( WP:GAMING) and the use of WP:Sockpuppets in the "votes" to delete that page. I know you must be busy, but I'm afraid you've been played for a fool, and conned into believing that, somehow, several independent people, quickly, wanted that page gone. In fact, several hundred people a day (hence, hundreds of independent users) had been requesting the page " Designated" for the content it provided. Again, I'm sorry those guys fooled you. Perhaps, always check the edit-history of the last few people to vote for delete: did they edit any other articles during the past 6 months? - Wikid77 ( talk) 03:38, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Is there anything can be done to restore the SWARL (Short Wave Amateur Radio Listening) article? It's not quite cleat to me why that was speedy deleted? Of course I read the discussion about it but the final decision looks to me too quick. I would rather give some notices on the content and let the author fix it. I feel like I have to explain the situation around SWARL: There was a SWARL Yahoo group and the informational website that comes up at first if you make search for SWARL in google. Both of those have been created by Steve Carter who passed it on to the crew with Marshall Cubitt (I'm member of this crew - Yury Bondarenko, you can see the full list of the crew at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SWARL/ and the URL of our site there too, which is http://swarl.org) SWARL Yahoo group is one of the largest groups on this topic, and the site swarl.org contains supporting information (read: club information) According to Steve Carter, he does not have access to the old site of SWARL and he tried to convince hoster of it to remove content of it, but with no success. So, SWARL has desided to start a new site http://swarl.org , it is very new site and there are not many links to it yet, but we are working on links corrections. The article about SWARL on Wikipedia was containing the most important info about our club and we would really like to restore it. If we need to correct our article in any way, please inform me. I could see there is an article about ARRL and our club is no lesser importance to SWLs in the world as ARRL to American HAMs. There are only three organizations left in the world that issue international SWL call signs and keep track of them. We have got 794 SWL call signs issued and this number increases every day. There is a big interest in SWLing among people who has receiver. Well I hope I didnt take too much of your time by this explanation and really hope to get our article on Wikipedia back. Brack11 ( talk) 20:24, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
I will not repeat the alterations to the citations and I respect it when I am reverted. However I thought I did the right thing. Shadowmorph ^"^ 20:13, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Please see WP:AE#SQRT5P1D2 and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Request for clarification: SQRT5P1D2. You may have a view on this situation. -- ChrisO ( talk) 08:31, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
In detemining an actual consensus, consider if the comments are neutral, or somehow, unbalanced to try to mislead other people's opinions. If comments are not genuine, then the whole process is likely highly distorted. Why? ...because where there's smoke there's fire: even one misleading comment opens the door to a possible firestorm of confusion and incorrect opinions. For that reason, if an AfD discussion involves suspicious opinions, then perhaps, the entire discussion has been slanted (in other ways not easily seen). I did not identify problems earlier, just to see if anyone else noticed, and to see if Wikipedia would delete an article that was attacked by suspicious opinions. I did not mean to be intentionally vague, nor suggest an unending fishing expedition.
Specifically, there are unlikely "random" opinions: consider the 13-days of contributions of a new user, now inactive for 10 days:
Special:Contributions/Martin_Raybourne.
See his opinion at end of:
Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Designated. This issue is not a priority; I work on thousands of articles, and I don't wish anyone to get upset about one page. I merely note:
I would recommend checking for hints (smoke) of unbalanced activity, and then consider the possibility that the consensus is being slanted in a unseen fire of inaccurate opinions. I am not blaming anyone for this situation, I merely note that there are such problems with Wikipedia's current policies about consensus.
Starting a "witchhunt" now could cause many problems: long-term users are involved. Instead, just realize that unbalanced opinions were listed, and try to be more aware when checking the next AfD. I suggest putting an AfD on hold, when new users start adding "random" opinions, without starting a witchhunt, and just declare that the matter requires "more time" to be re-opened for other users' opinions. There would be no automatic
witchhunt for puppets or canvassing, but also no instant deletes, using the easy-excuse that more opinions were needed. Hence, just delay a suspicious AfD. -
Wikid77 (
talk)
12:58, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Re. this, I have merged the material to Mayu Sakai. You said you wanted to do something to preserve attribution. -- Apoc2400 ( talk) 13:46, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
I've suggested a way to reduce the amount of clutter that we're likely to have in the envisaged public RfC. Please see Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion/Macedonia#Winnowing proposals - grateful for comments. -- ChrisO ( talk) 19:05, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
LOL why is it Fritz that you seem to attract people in droves who are more interested in policies and proposals rather than on specific article content? Hehe. Why is it nobody visits your talk page for a "normal" not arb like conversation!! Dr. Blofeld White cat 19:14, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Nope. What is it? Dr. Blofeld White cat 20:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Surprised we don't have an article on it. I guess its one of the general topics which are of high encyclopedic value that are missing from the project. If we think generally rather than specificially we could be providing an overview on a huge number of topics. I studied a bit of electoral reform for A level particularly the period 1829-1848. I'm sure a mass could be written about it so go for it! Dr. Blofeld White cat 22:50, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi Fritzpoll. I think that some of the users who showed interest in the discussion here should be notified of the winnowing proposals section, in case they have not noticed it. Cheers, Balkan Fever 12:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
The record shows you closed the {{ afd}} for Gregory McMillion.
The nominator failed to comply with the recommendations in the deletion policies that nominators show good faith by informing the individual who uploaded or created the article.
Since I didn't have a chance to defend the article at its {{ afd}}, or to make changes to address the concerns raised there, I would appreciate it if you could userify it to User:Geo Swan/review/Gregory McMillion. I'd like to request its full revision history and its talk page too please.
Thanks! Geo Swan ( talk) 03:05, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
I am talking about myself in the Macedonia discussion. I try to keep a low tone and when one issue is rest (like the one about a few edits I made about citation styles that were reverted and I never edit warred about them), another one is raised against me. The latest one was that I am "Swamping the case pages with nonsensical proposals". I don't focus at the incivil implications of the word "nonsensical", someone may judge them to be nonsense, or "bulshit" (a word used about another user's arguments). However sustained attacks on my good faith without a reason (I thought having many proposals were the objective, not something to be avoided) is not something I can accept. Shadowmorph ^"^ 14:20, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
How many attacks can one account sustain?
I'd say roughly 763? Dr. Blofeld White cat 19:08, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Hehe :) make that 764 with this [12] semi-accusation of canvassing. Shadowmorph ^"^ 17:20, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Fritzpoll, what do you think? [13] Should Odin5000's rant be allowed to stand? His contributions are very suspicious - this looks like a sleeper sockpuppet account, probably of one of the numerous editors who have been blocked for disruption in this topic area (possibly one of those banned by the ArbCom?). -- ChrisO ( talk) 16:07, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Since you are involved in the discussion concerning the removal of Proposal G, I am informing you of the request for clarification I have put forth [14]. I am only doing this because I believe that the greater community should have a chance of seeing and evaluating the proposal by itself. I highly regard all of the effort that you have put in this discussion, so far, and wish to thank you for it. -- Radjenef ( talk) 17:40, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
You said you'll get back to me shortly but I still waiting for an answer
Brack11 ( talk) 12:34, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
If you take a look at the front page of SWARL yahoo group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/swarl/ which is our main representation on the web, you can see that it says "web site swarl.org" and the SWARL is the same club as e.g. ARRL, with over 800 members, very rapidly growing. What kind of independent reliable sources can I provide? we are the main source of information about ourselves. Can I please restore the article? The website of SWARL contains essential information about purposes of the club, as well as participation information. Brack11 ( talk) 09:37, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Brack11 ( talk) 22:26, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
here are some links to us from independed sites:
But the site is very new, so, it is in promotional status and I dont know how reliable you may see the sources above. Can you give an example of reliable source that we could provide? Brack11 ( talk) 11:10, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
User:Radjenef is making unilateral edits to proposal text without discussing them first ( [15] [16] [17]), even though we already entered the RfC phase. I reverted them with explanatory comments ( [18] [19] [20]). Could you please take a look at this and clarify whether such unilateral edits are allowed at this point?
It was not clear to me what is the status of proposals at this point. If reverting was the wrong thing to do, I apologize and I will accept any sanctions you deem appropriate. -- Grnch ( talk) 02:29, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Also, please check here and in the talk page for my version of what's happening. -- Radjenef ( talk) 02:39, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
No problem with the Merge - I've had very little time to work on that article (had another article on DYK on Wednesday that took more time). Thanks. ( talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:35, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi Fritz. I wonder if you'd be so kind as to move the deleted article into my userspace? It seems like the kind of hard hitting and important encyclopedia article subject I may want to work on in the near future. Have a great weekend. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 18:55, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Common End, Colkirk. 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. (Not the nominator; just notifying you [although I would note that you might at least want to tweak your closing statement, which to the extent that it means to state a categorical rule overreaches; there is, of course, a longstanding consensus that certain geographic features—of which this, it should be said, is probably not one—that are necessarily notable, irrespective of their having received the treatment contemplated by GNG, such that the general absolute proposition that "we have no policies or guidelines to support an exemption [from the idea that existence is not sufficient for an article] in the case of geographical entities" cannot be said to command the support of the community].) Cheers, Joe ( talk) 20:02, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
I saw your delete and redirect for Maria Belen Shapur. This is extremely destructive. Please restore the article then change to a redirect.
There is text that people wrote and references that people got. You can easily change the article from the text to a direct WITHOUT deleting the text permanently. Then if there are troublemakers who re-create the article, they can be punished. However, do not censure and book burn.
By delete it, you have also destroyed all of the talk pages that accompanied the article. By keeping a paper trail, this helps any kind of future archeological research that one might do in wikipedia.
If you do what I suggested (blank the article then make it a redirect) then knowledge is not lost but the article is cleaned up. This is one of the least controversial actions rather than deleting the article and changing it to a redirect. Note that for the AFD, I made analytical comments and did not advocate keep or delete. Because of this, I am even more neutral and objective than you.
Thank you. User F203 ( talk) 19:44, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
There was not a consensus to delete but rather some favoring delete and some keep. I did not offer an opinion in the AFD except for analytical comments.
Please make the article available to me so that I can review the text of the article and the references. After this review, the article can be deleted. Thank you. User F203 ( talk) 21:38, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I was actually in the process of typing messages to both you and F203 when I noticed your comment. I am normally happy to provide access to material, and thought this the best route as it preserved the edit history (in case a partial merge was performed). If you feel that it is best that the content is deleted, you are welcome to overturn my actions, as you are more familiar with the subject matter than myself. What were your reasons for refusal? J Milburn ( talk) 22:21, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Sorry that you are mad, Fritzpoll. Because of fading memory, I did not know if there were any references that could improve the related article. If I knew, then I would have clearly stated it. Since I just had a suspicion that there were some references worth saving, I asked to review it and did mention that the deleted material included some references.
I think this has been discussed enough. Good luck in WP. User F203 ( talk) 18:20, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
I saw this article on the main page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Pakistan_Army_Mil_Mi-17_crash
I immediately thought whether or not this article should be deleted. Obscure articles hidden in Wikipedia is a different matter. Having an improper article on the main page is egg on our face.
What do you think?
WP:AIRCRASH does or does not meet this? User F203 ( talk) 19:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
I am not on a delete mission. The article is more of a news event than an encyclopedic article. However, it's not so trivial that deletion is urgent. Furthermore, there doesn't seem to be a guideline for military crashes except that perhaps 1 man training accidents don't usually qualify. Thanks for your assessment. User F203 ( talk) 20:46, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
I've been thinking. Wikipedia is a funny place. There the age old arguments. Delete/keep. Israel/Gaza. Macedonia and FYRM and Macedonia sockpuppets. Also some very sloppy articles. Lots of news. Yet, the scholarly writing of an encyclopedic article is only a small portion of edits. You don't have to comment...it's just like talking about the weather. User F203 ( talk) 23:08, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Per the DRV. :) Let me begin by asking you a question.
Is a sysop like a clerk to a working group, tasked with recording and implementing their decisions? Or is the sysop more like an executive listening to a board of advisers, and deciding which to listen to and which to disregard?— S Marshall Talk/ Cont 21:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Compare RFA with AfD. Both have a similar structure, with a nomination and arguments. But with an RFA, I think you'll agree with me that it doesn't matter which crat makes the close.
At AfD, I think the situation is quite the reverse. I think how it's closed is a lottery that depends on the closer.
Gonna pause in this line of argument at this point, so as to give you a chance to poke holes in my mistakes. :)— S Marshall Talk/ Cont 22:51, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
The question we're considering is the case where the local consensus and the global consensus are at odds with one another, and I think the solution is not for the admin to disregard the local consensus in closing. I think admins are supposed to guide the local consensus in these cases (and not, in the vast majority of cases, to overrule it).
I think that where the local consensus and the global consensus are at odds with one another, the sysop needs to refrain from closing and !vote instead. You see, another admin will be along to close shortly, and this new admin will then have a better consensus to deal with.
The point of this is to avoid not just abuse, but the appearance of abuse.— S Marshall Talk/ Cont 08:34, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
If we're dealing with cases where a "flurry" of admins would be necessary to create a swing, then we're actually dealing with a matter well-covered by policy, because what we have is a local consensus to suspend the global consensus in this one particular case — in which case there's already a clear rule.— S Marshall Talk/ Cont 09:59, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Is this "demonstrable benefit to the encyclopaedia"? Where do you set the bar?— S Marshall Talk/ Cont 10:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
My position is that "consensus" is, by its very nature, a group decision-making process, and that the admin's role is to implement the group's view—and that per well-established policy, a local consensus can suspend a global one in particular cases.
A !vote count may not represent the group's view, but in the absence of bad faith or sockpuppetry, it's strongly indicative of it.
This isn't to say that there are no circumstances in which the closer should disregard the consensus. A BLP concern, a copyvio, an attack page or other genuine issue involving direct harm to someone would earn an "endorse" from me at DRV.
On the other hand, in places like dispute resolution, admins are charged not to overrule the consensus, but to guide it and influence it so it reaches an appropriate conclusion. My position is that this applies to AfD as well, insofar as editors are engaged in collegial, good-faith discussion.— S Marshall Talk/ Cont 11:07, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
The key point there is that I feel, in such cases, the closer should look for a refutation in the actual discussion. Where it is in the discussion doesn't seem so relevant to me.— S Marshall Talk/ Cont 14:31, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
[21] This is A, not B. Dc76\ talk 18:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi. Any idea how you can {{subst: a surname in the page title to DEFAULTSORT sort the categories? Its just I have a large batch of German politicians to transwiki and I want to do it more quickly. So basically when you create the page it automatically places e.g Fritz Baier as Baier, Fritz in the categories. If not I gather there is a bot that can default sort the categories by surname and fix it afterwards? Dr. Blofeld White cat 10:17, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
|
The Townhall of Münster Award
goes to Fritzpoll for helping to end the Thirty Months Macedonian naming wars. |
And now for the party …
|
---|
![]() |
![]() |
The Golden Wiki Award | |
For your exceptional contributions in dispute resolution, specifically, handling the centralized discussion that was a result of the arbitration case ARBMAC2, I award you this Golden Wiki Award. Outstanding job! Rlevse 22:03, 10 July 2009 (UTC) |
Do you have any thoughts about differentiating the notability (criminal acts), specifically murder with the not news guideline?
Often, there's a sensationalist murder that gets a lot of news attention. Sometimes, it's just for a week or so. Some very significant murders are covered by print encyclopedias but many murders of questionable notability do not.
I have no preconceived idea to expand or limit the number of murder articles. I just think that there is a lack of guidance to what is notable.
Is there a role for a separate WP:N/M, M for murder?
What do you think about changing the criteria a bit? Should the criteria for old murders be the same as current murders (probably yes)? Would there ever be support for the idea that only the exceptional murder is notable within 3 months to avoid the "murder of the month".
There is a murder of the month. The current murder of the month is the Nashville former football player.
I'm writing to you because you seem to be interested in the WP:N/CA topic. After becoming better acquainted with the subject, I might bring it up there. User F203 ( talk) 15:02, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Any reason? Tan | 39 14:42, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Dear fellow Wikipedian, on behalf of the Kindness campaign, I just want to wish you a Happy Bastille Day, whether you are French, Republican or not! :) Happy Editing! Sincerely, -- A Nobody My talk 22:20, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi, why didn't you answer me?. Any idea how you can {{subst: a surname in the page title to DEFAULTSORT sort the categories? Its just I have a large batch of German politicians to transwiki and I want to do it more quickly. So basically when you create the page it automatically places e.g Fritz Baier as Baier, Fritz in the categories. If not I gather there is a bot that can default sort the categories by surname and fix it afterwards? Dr. Blofeld White cat 10:17, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
I noticed, more fun and games I see. Always trouble in the Balkans!. Mmm I was hoping ther ewould be something quite simple available, as automatic DEFAULT sorting would seem like a basic operational tool. Trust all is well. Dr. Blofeld White cat 10:38, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
As can be seen in this history you reverted my bad revert, thanks. I accidently hit rollback. I did try to fix my error but you were fast and beat me to it. Thanks for that though, I appreciate not being beat up over my stupidity today. :) Thanks again, -- CrohnieGal Talk 12:16, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
I think I'm ready to start building the first of the glossary articles now. The first article I'd like userfied is List of Internet Relay Chat clients ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). As best I can tell from mirrored copies I uncovered with Google, this should be good base to build the client glossary outline on top of. -- Tothwolf ( talk) 03:25, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
This is a fuller explanation of my viewpoint. You thought that the "AfD result has upset" me, but no, instead, I'm quite happy: the AfD-delete has provided evidence I need to analyze policy implications. Please don't think my criticisms of Wikipedia policies are an attack on the people: these problems should not be "blamed" on individuals who think they are just following the policies. And I like your suggestion about creating a guideline for subarticles.
I use terms like "Weakipedia" to emphasize that the system has serious hollow-article problems. Of 10 million registered users, 98% quit within 1 month: that also seems like a problem to solve. So, I don't blame any one person for deleting the top article #497 (of current reader's interest); that deletion is the result of current policies that advise people to ignore Google hits & reader interest.
Meanwhile, as I calculated, that CoMJ article answered the pageviews of 215,000 people, very likely influencing 1.5 million, and provided quick facts to 96% of people who were interested. What a great win for Wikipedia! That's fantastic, and you also helped by suggesting areas for improvement/concern, changed during those 215,000 pageviews, so thank you as well. Plus, as you had noted about libel/WP:BLP issues, after those 215,000 people got their answers, now the article is gone, and hence we don't have to worry that someone would vandalize the article to be embarrassingly read by 8,000 people per day, in the future. The AfD-delete has provided a resting-period, where people have time to re-consider policies, as to how they would rewrite/protect such popular information in the future, while AfD-deletion had been delayed until 96% of people read their factual answers (because the article remained coherent most of the time, due to your rescues!). Plus, this situation happened, at a time in history, when millions were mourning and concerned about those children's outlook. Hence, I think we should all be relieved and calm at this point. -
Wikid77 (
talk)
08:41, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for signing up for the Great Wikipedia Dramaout. Wikipedia stands to benefit from the improvements in the article space as a result of this campaign. This is a double reminder. First, the campaign begins on July 18, 2009 at 00:00 (UTC). Second, please remember to log any articles you have worked on during the campaign at Wikipedia:The Great Wikipedia Dramaout/Log. Thanks again for your participation! -- Jayron32. talk. say no to drama 22:01, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank you again for your support of the Great Wikipedia Dramaout. Preliminary statistics indicate that 129 new articles were created, 203 other articles were improved, and 183 images were uploaded. Additionally, 41 articles were nominated for DYK, of which at least 2 have already been promoted. There are currently also 8 articles up for GA status and 3 up for FA/FL status. Though the campaign is technically over, please continue to update the log page at WP:NODRAMA/L with any articles which you worked during the campaign, and also to note any that receive commendation, such as DYK, GA or FA status. You may find the following links helpful in nominating your work:
Again, thank you for making this event a success! -- Jayron32. talk. say no to drama 02:20, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
What do you get when you cross Julian McMahon with Tom Jones eh? A German politician? LOL!! Dr. Blofeld White cat 16:26, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi. In light of recent events and community concerns about the way in which content is transferred I have proposed a new wikiproject which would attempt to address any of the concerns and done in an environment where a major group of editors work together to transfer articles from other wikipedias in the most effective way possible without BLP or referencing problems. Please offer your thoughts at the proposal and whether or not you support or oppose the idea of a wikiproject dedicated to organizing a more efficient process of getting articles in different languages translated into English. Dr. Blofeld White cat 13:00, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Re [22] - you might want to clarify what you mean by "notified". If you mean "put on their talk page" you should say so; otherwise it can be interpreted as "put on a page you know they will read". As for the "recorded centrally": if you have a page in mind, you should specify it. If you haven't, then there is a problem William M. Connolley ( talk) 12:52, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi. As I pointed out there, I think you missed this diff [23]. Hipocrite read about the page-bans on talk:cold fusion, accepted them and did not request separate notification. Cheers, Mathsci ( talk) 13:17, 6 August 2009 (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. |
Mess around with the guy in shades all you like - don't mess around with the girl in gloves! ( talk) 02:08, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2009 Bulacan Factory Explosion (Santa Maria, Philippines) 4 keeps, 2 deletes, you closed as delete on Apr 30, without an explanation. I think that in a case like this, when you are going to overrule apparent consensus, it might be a good idea to say why at the close. Could you explain a little further now? DGG ( talk) 13:08, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Laurent ( talk) 20:46, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm glad the closer of this AfD turned out to be you. I would appreciate your considering changing the close from "no consensus" to straight "keep", or permit me to go to DRV, for the following reasons (IMHO):
If you ask why I would press for this, "icing on the cake" as it were, when I already succeeded in retaining the article, the reason is that, with some frank emotion, I'm done with this exact same nominator putting up fallacious and puffy arguments time after time and having the articles marked "NCDK" as if his arguments had equal validity with the keep arguments, and this AfD is a particularly telling case of that approach. (His other approach has been to nominate and obtain a deletion when I'm not around.) I had prepared to go to DRV regardless because I suspected that the "NCDK" easy route would be very tempting to the closing admin, but please consider that in this case there really is a clear difference in argumentative weight. If you have any better way to curb the behavior of this nominator, who has been a virtual WP:SPA on this POV-pushing for the past month, or if you feel there really was equal weight from both sides (!), I'm all ears. JJB 02:02, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2009. 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. Burzmali ( talk) 17:00, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Lookin good. We need to think of a way though to do something about all those unsightly lists in the article though. Dr. Blofeld White cat 11:03, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Dunno. LOL looks like Derren Brown magically placed himself in an Elizabethan paiting. See File:Cobbe portrait of Shakespeare.jpg Hehe Dr. Blofeld White cat 14:11, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
You closed the AfD on Stoddard House in the wrong way, in my opinion, by deleting it. I thot it was going to be kept although material in it would be merged into Oyster Bay History Walk and perhaps it would have been replaced by a redirect eventually. Well, anyhow, now could you please provide a copy of the article and of its Talk page (which I believe should have included an OTRS verification of its content)? Thanks in advance, doncram ( talk) 13:59, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm a bit confused how you could close the Footy tipping AFD as redirect, when it was only one very persistent nominator and the first respondent saying merge, myself and one other saying keep. Filter out the nominators cross examination of everyone else's opinion and it's not very well discussed - only 3 other opinions. Are you willing or able to relist it or do I need to take it to DRV? The-Pope ( talk) 14:42, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to request the undeletion of the article on Sydney Rae White, which I believe has been prematurely deleted - I do not believe that the case for deletion was proven conclusively, and that notability can still be proven (I was still working on trying to find supporting references to prove notability...). Emma white20 ( talk) 14:50, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Abd and JzG/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Abd and JzG/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Hersfold ( t/ a/ c) 02:09, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to ask you to grant me rollback rights.
The reason I turn to you is because I saw your name in Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to grant rollback requests and remembered seeing you recently closing some AfD (if I remember correctly).
The reason I'd like to apply for rollback rights is that in the course of my regular wikignoming I revert many edits (generally at least ten a day) that are vandalism or clearly unconstructive, and often these are a series of several edits made by the same user.
I'll be watching this page for your answer. Debresser ( talk) 00:15, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
In view of your silence, I have placed a request at Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions/Rollback#User:Debresser. Debresser ( talk) 17:56, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Sydney Rae White. 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.
I am a fan of the film and Mr. Musatov was a professor at my University. Why is his page suddenly being railroaded and terminated? I am going to rebuild it. He deserves it. Thanks! Solsticefan ( talk) 10:01, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
And people say Sundays are supposed to be relaxing. I've had rather a stressful day on here today!! How iz work these days? Dr. Blofeld White cat 21:34, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
If you don't believe it to be sufficiently common, please stop by Wikipedia_talk:BLP#Premature_BLP1E_AfD.27s and read the discussion and consensus there. Your comments and suggestions there will be welcome, as will any sort of counterevidence you care to present. I'm at a loss to find any recent BLP AfD where this rule of thumb would NOT have held true. Jclemens ( talk) 21:35, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
I would ask you to reconsider your close on this AFD. Two of the three people to argue there argued in favour of keeping a standalone article, and only one asked for it to be redirected. I don't see how this can be considered a "COnsensus ... for the mateiral to be included elsewhere." Even aside from the consensus, redirecting to the Australian Football article is very misleading, because as the article itself said, tipping is conducted on most football codes in Australia, including rugby league, rugby union and A-League football. If it must be a redirect, it shouldn't be a redirect to where you pointed it. I hope you will reconsider your close. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 09:02, 29 April 2009 (UTC).
Congratulations mate. Dr. Blofeld White cat 12:49, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
P.S. I did start a facebook account under Blofeld so I could see what some of the people who I was in school with are up to these days. I'm not a fan of facebook thats why I never use it! Dr. Blofeld White cat 09:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Yeah me neither. I was wondering if you know how to get an automatic index by default sorting for categories. Is there a way you can get the last name of the page name to automatically feature first in the category sorting? Dr. Blofeld White cat 10:10, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi Fritzpoll I wanted to let you know that Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/FritzpollBot 2 is labeled as needing your comment. Please visit the above link to reply to the requests. Thanks! -- BAGBot Talk 17:32, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
I appreciate you trying to help out with this dispute between ikip and AMiB, because it's fundamentally a dispute between inclusionists and deletionists. Both sides have trouble accepting the advice of anyone in the middle, let alone people on either side.
How do you think we should go about getting some independent feedback, and preventing the discussions from spiralling downward into a WP:BATTLEGROUND between inclusionists and deletionists? Randomran ( talk) 20:02, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
My BAG membership nomination passed today at 8/0/0 unanimously. I sincerely thank you for participating in my BAG request. I appreciate all the kind words that I received and will endeavor to justify the trust the WP community has placed in me....Have a nice day. :-) -- Tinu Cherian - 09:49, 11 May 2009 (UTC) | ![]() |
what happened to the original intention to create articles for every place in the world? I thought it was a great idea, and it seems the bot was approved, however no action seems to have been taken? what is the deal? regards Suicup ( talk) 12:00, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Can you make a decision and close this please? Dr. Blofeld ( talk) 14:00, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. It's due for DYK in a few days time and it needn't have gone on any longer. just another example of how so many people confuse notability with lack of content. If I hadn't have stepped in it would have been snowball deleted.. Dr. Blofeld ( talk) 14:54, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Don't know why you would get slated, the outcome was clear. If you closed the Bulgaria-::Indonesia relations article now then you indeed might. Hey I've been asking for random images from flickr of late asking people to change the license. We now have an image for an article I started yesterday, Moni Gonia Monastery, Haifa Wehbe (which is EXTREMELY difficult to get a non commercial image of) and Charley Boorman, not one but several! Dr. Blofeld ( talk) 15:06, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Funnily Ikip I was about to ask Fritz the same thing, See User talk:John Carter#Bilateral relations. Dr. Blofeld ( talk) 15:29, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
The Barnstar of Peace | |
The Barnstar of Peace is awarded to users who have helped to resolve, peacefully, conflicts on Wikipedia.
This Barnstar is awarded to Fritzpoll for his tireless efforts on negotiating peace on Article Rescue Squadron. On behalf of not only the article rescue squadron, but also the new users who regularly have their contributions deleted, thank you for your dedication. Ikip ( talk) 14:25, 11 May 2009 (UTC) |
Hi, I wanted to ask you if it would be possible to quit the redirection from the article Alexis Grace. I think that it is a very reliable and notable person. Also all the other contestants have an article, why Alexis doesn`t have one? I would be grateful if you do this. Facha93 ( talk) 00:45, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Mind if I undelete this, in the interest of preserving historical discussions? It can be marked with {{
historical}}
or somesuch, but there's no need to remove the history from public view. Thanks.
seresin (
¡? )
00:46, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
While I cannot speak for all members, I certainly do not view you as "an enemy". That is why in my support in that thread, my appeal is that we not lose focus on our primary objective of rescuing articles, rather than on accusing anyone of anything. I and I hope my colleagues do not and should not regard your good faith comments there as adversarial. Best, -- A Nobody My talk 17:23, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi Fritzpoll I wanted to let you know that Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/FritzpollBot 2 is labeled as needing your comment. Please visit the above link to reply to the requests. Thanks! -- BAGBot Talk 04:15, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi Fritz - is there any chance I could ask you to close an old SFD? It's festering a little (the creator of the stubs is, a bit fractious, to put it politely), but both Pegship and Grutness have been involved in the debate so neither of them wants to close it and I also am active in the group so it's best somebody outside of the group closes it. It's at Wikipedia:Stub_types_for_deletion/Log/2009/April/19. Cheers. Dr. Blofeld ( talk) 20:11, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
OlYeller Talktome 15:11, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Can you please tell Abd to get off of my talk page and not return? I have given him carte blanche to file whatever motions or whatever he wants without notifing me - in fact, I have done this twice.
Abd must stop using my talk page, and he must stop now. Can you make this happen? Hipocrite ( talk) 18:43, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi Fritzpoll, I have a bot request that maybe you'd be interested in! (It's at least marginally related to the failed geobot, in that it targets expansion in areas that are systemically undercovered.) I've twice proposed at WP:BOTREQ a bot that would help fix up translation requests. The first time no one answered, and the second time LegoKTM said he'd do it but never did. :( (When I followed up on his talk page he didn't reply.) If you have spare time and an inclination to help, it would be much appreciated. The last bot request is at Wikipedia:Bot_requests/Archive_26#Fixing_broken_translation_requests. Calliopejen1 ( talk) 19:18, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
{{transreq|fr|articletitle}}
- hopefully changes like this would be pretty trivial in terms of thinking about the bot. If you think not let me know so I can decide about the template merger first!
Calliopejen1 (
talk)
01:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC)The content of Nagatachō Strawberry could be merged to Mayu Sakai. Could you restore the old revisions, restore to my user space, email me the content, or just paste it in Mayu Sakai? -- Apoc2400 ( talk) 22:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi, good day! Just want you to know that I salute you for weighing things without prejudice just like what you did on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Masalipit. :) I realized I should not be hasty to vote for a delete or a keep just because it is on AFD. I should have voted for a redirect because this is an option too. You have become my inspiration when I read your verdict to redirect this article to its parent article.
I hope I can be an inspiration to others too, someday! :) Again, thanks for that and kudos to you! ax ( talk) 14:35, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Why was this put up for AFD? Has wikipedia improved since you made the decision to redirect here. What was the point in doing this? Now we have no information and a faulty link in the main article leading nowhere. If nothing existed on it, why was there so mucb information available on it which seemd like government sources? I see there is some sort of agreement than barangays are non notable on wikipedia. I wonder why it is then that we can have long well referenced on other similar sized areas of other countries. Seems odd to me that these should be exempt. Might be time to adress the inherent notability of places again as I don't see why the Philippines is unique. Dr. Blofeld White cat 20:15, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Exactly. The inherent notability of geographical places needs addressing because previously the geo article just needed to be verifiable conform to notability. I'm not saying I agree with either notion as content and sources are the real decider to notability but we seriously need to address this as localities in the Philippines should not be considered any different to anywhere else in the world. When we have full articles on things like old barns in tiny villages in the U.S. it makes one wonder why one is notable yet an area of another country isn't. Dr. Blofeld White cat 20:40, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree Fritz. But the fact is in general a lot of people consider places "inherently notable" and most geo articles are kept if verifiable, evne if sources are lacking. Personally I don't agree with inherent notability either as I said it is content and coverage in reliable sources which makes an article worthy. The problem of course is that we may have hundreds of sources about an old barn in the states yet may not have a single rleiable online source about a district in the developing world for sinance. Potentially a lot could be written about most places but in light of this particular AFD and the decision to redirect I think this issue really needs to be looked into. All I know is that encyclopedia suitable information exists for this place and whoever wrote it found the information somewhere. Did anybody ask the creator the source the article first? Dr. Blofeld White cat 20:48, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
I dunno, its long been a very obsure part of wikipedia policy. People generally take for granted that all geographical articles are notable, this is why we have articles on tiny fishing hamlets in Nunavut and Nova Scotia etc and in the UK etc. The fact is that it is only "potentially" we could have articles about any villages or hamlet worldwide and some places you could probably indeed summarise in the parent municipal article etc. We have articles on sub districts of most world cities and a lot of towns, 2,235 people apparently live in this district so how do we make a formal decision over notability when we have articles on dwellings with 3 people and articles on barns like Smith Tobacco Barn? If it is based purely on rleiable publications covering the topic then obviously the main issue is uneven access to knowledge with the developing world against "westernized" nations. Dr. Blofeld White cat 20:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Yeah the problem is that in the end a tiny barn in the middle of nowhere in the states which has sources and registry as a historic place is kept whilst a district with 2235 people living it is considered not because of the uneven lack of access to knowledge. Is this barn considered more notable than this barangay, a human settlement with over 2000 people? Tough subject to evaluate. The argument against having articles on barangays seems to be largely about they are "too small" to be worthy of note and lack of sources online anyway. The thing is we have pretty decent articles on tiny hamlets far small than these barangays which have an abundance of sources and even tiny buildings like windmills and barns etc but these aren't considered too small to be worthy of note. In the end it does come down to systematic bias as I'd bet my kitty's right knee that in the real world a place with 2235 people could easily be made notable on here if the sources existed. If I managed to visit a library in the Philippines for instance now and found a number of reliable publications to write a full article on it would the article then be considered of note? I remember somebody also brought up the subject of Frazioni in Italy, villages in communes. In a lot of cases it is definately better to fill out the articles on these communes fand municipalities in places like philippines and Italy first before creating articles about villages within them but as wikipedia grows I can see us having articles on them eventually. It would seem to be dependent on web coverage and the amount of users working on developing such topics. Dr. Blofeld White cat 20:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Yeah I know. It wasn't so much a decision based on notable areas though it was more on starting articles with adequate sources and information which was the problem, particularly for developing countries. If we do propose to revamp the criteria it will have to go on hold as right now I have an FAC on my hands and anticipate quite some work in next few days and am also have ing Internet connection problems darn it! Hope you are well. Dr. Blofeld White cat 23:27, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
If I may add to the discussion, I think the fact that there are thousands upon thousands of articles on U.S. places is because of Rambot's work back in 2003. As such, this "inherent notability" of populated places is now partly based on fait accompli of this bot work. I seriously think that the presence of such U.S. articles has been strongly used to argue for inherent notability of populated places elsewhere in the world regardless of whether they pass
WP:N or not.
Smith Tobacco Barn is a poor example since it is part of the U.S. Registry of Historical Places which provides a good reason as to this building's notability.
As for the concern that there is now an uneven coverage of similarly sized places across the world, the argument that we increase coverage in the developing world can be turned upside down: why don't we instead decrease the coverage in the Western world and only retain the truly notable ones? In addition, the WikiProject Philippines community has an uncodified consensus that only notable barangays should have articles. Filipinos would be one of the best judges at whether barangays, in general, are notable and we have decided that they are not "inherently notable".
-- seav ( talk) 12:40, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
I knew I supported your RfA for a reason... oh wait, I opposed didn't I ;-) Anyway, I wanted to say that I think this was the right call.--- I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 19:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi there. I'm not looking to get contentious, but I was hoping I could get some clarity on why you felt the sources provided did not satisfy WP:RS.
Thanks. — Bdb484 ( talk) 20:51, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
So when is your wikibreak going to be over?--- I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 21:38, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
I disagree with your close of that Afd - I think that if a national census agency keeps track of these places, as the US does with census-designated places that were mass created by bot without any sourcing but the census data on the shared notion that these places are notable, per se. If a national government tracks these entities (barangays in this case), they are notable enough. I suggest that you re-evaluate your close to keep. Enjoy your wikibreak. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 03:54, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
The odd thing about the barangays though is that most of Wp:Philiippines or whatever project they have running seem to be very against having articles on them. A rough math is that if the municipalitiy covers 231 km2 and there are 49 barangays then on average a barangay will be 4.7 km 2. Pretty small, equivalent to a small district of any town. Dr. Blofeld White cat 16:18, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
That's what I thought Polaron. We of course have articles on main districts of major cities and towns but not sure about the status on sub neighbourhoods in relatively unknown municipalities in such countries from a world viewpoint. Perhaps the fact that Filipinos on here or people who live in the Philippines indicate they aren't notable maybe we should trust their judgement, after all a lot of them are on wikipedia to oftne improve our coverage of the country and if they disapprove of having them then maybe there is a clear reason. They are mentioned in government publications which as Carlos says is normally a claim to notability but not easy to judge. Dr. Blofeld White cat 17:02, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Masalipit. 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. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 19:07, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi there. I'm not looking to get contentious, but I was hoping I could get some clarity on why you felt the sources provided did not satisfy WP:RS.
Sorry. — Rihanoooo1191 ( talk) 14:53, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, per your kind offer at the AfD, please userfy the article to User:MichaelQSchmidt/sandbox/Sergio D. Acosta. I expect to be able to find more and get this back to main pages in a month of three. Will I have to go throuh DVR since I will be then recreating a deleted article? I'd hate the drama that could arise. Or will it serve to have you recheck it at that time? Thank you, Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:45, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Eugene Krabs ( talk) 14:37, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
I highly disagree with your decision to close List of Latin American Jews as "keep" instead of "no consensus," and disagree even more vehemently with the closing comment "No deletion argument referring to our policies or guidelines, and arguments that only seem to be extensions of WP:IDONTLIKEIT."
I would wish you to review the closure more closely and mark it as either a "no consensus" or re-open it for an extended period of time with more neutral participants - or at least participants who do not WP:WIKISTALK me to AfDs simply to !vote opposite: ( Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Badagnani). Please see the long history of problems WP:V and WP:RS with both User:Hmains and User:Badagnani on List of X-American articles.
What guidelines/policies are discussed in my deletion argument:
Now what guidelines/policies were discussed by the "keep" arguments? None, they boil down to...
Please consider re-opening this Afd or at least reviewing it in more detail. There were very few participants to begin with, typically an Afd is given an extension period when that situation comes about. Bulldog123 21:08, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
{{
doing}}
- reviewing this, and will make a statement shortly
Fritzpoll (
talk)
09:33, 6 June 2009 (UTC)In reading the AFD, did you notice that many of the participants failed to understand the use British academic titles? British understatement results in titles like Senior Lecturer, Tutor, etc. being quite prestigious. Also he authored three notable books not one (all published in 3rd party sources and found in libraries around the world). Publishing this many books is in fact somewhat rare among academics and qualifies per WP:CREATIVE. Would you consider closing it as no consensus? -- Firefly322 ( talk) 22:00, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
HI,
THIS KWW EDITOR APPEARS TO BE ATTACKING MARC MYSTERIO, HIS ARTICLES, AND SONGS FOR NO REASON...
THE CHARTS NOTED ARE NOTABLE AND INCLUDED ACROSS WIKI...
THE LET LOOSE SONG ARTICLE WAS JUST DELETED, AND WITHOUT JUST CAUSE...
IT LEGITAMATELY CHARTED IN UKRAINE... HOWEVER, THESE BOZOS THAT KNOW NOTHING OF MUSIC BUSINESS WANT TO STIR SHIT...
FDR CHART, THAT IT... THE ONLY CHART IN UKRAINE..
NOW, THEY WISH TO ATTACK HIS OTHER SONG, ROLL WIT IT...
THAT SONG CHARTED ON THE CANADIAN CLUB AND DANCE NATIONAL CHART, WHICH IS COMPILED BY ZIP DJ...
I DONT HAVE TIME OR CARE AT THIS POINT... ILL LEAVE IT WITH YOU...
IM IN THE MUSIC BIZ FOR 20 YEARS, AND NEVER DEAL WITH SUCH A BULLSHIT SITE AS THIS ONE THAT PEOPLE LEND CREDIBILITY TO THAT DELETE A JUSTFULLY NOTABLE SONG AS LET LOOSE...
Hi there, I just wanted to bring up an issue with your decision to Close the Tamil Protest AfD by merging all the articles into the main. While I would mostly agree with your opinion that there is a consensus to merge the articles for the protests in each country, there seems to have also been a strong thread of opinion that the 2009 Tamil protests in Canada and possibly the British article were large enough to stand on their own and should not be merged into the main page. So, I'd just like to ask that you take a second look at the discussion in the AfD and reconsider blanking and redirecting the Canadian article. Thank you Mike McGregor (Can) ( talk) 16:06, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
{{
mainarticle}}
link in the central article. If there is silence or agreement after a week or so, feel free to revert the redirection, and link to a diff of this statement of mine as justification. I know this means a few more days in limbo, but is much less dramatic than the alternatives, though you are free to pursue
a review of the close if you wish, but I'm unwilling to change it at this time. Hope that helps, and I'm happy to discuss further
Fritzpoll (
talk)
16:49, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Hello, I've been contributing to the article much during the last several days, and I can say there's definitely much more data from reliable sources on the subject that that can be presented in one paragraph of the current redirect. The problem with WP:FORK argument is that the article Discrimination against ethnic minorities in Estonia gave more sourced data and analysis than the current section. Maybe we could instead rename the article as it is into something like " Rights of ethnic minorities in Estonia" and then continue the work? For the AFD discussion started the same day the article was created, and there was just absolutely not enough time for the completion of the article. How can we just through out a dozen of sources saying the minorities rights in a country are limited? FeelSunny ( talk) 10:05, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for finally closing the debate. It was getting a bit out of hand. ( Igny ( talk) 14:03, 8 June 2009 (UTC))
... that I have not notified you of three deletion reviews. All three are on your page. I am not sure why you don't see them displayed. I can see them, the last one is just two messages up, can't you see it?. Notifications:
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Azerbaijan–Spain relations. 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. )
An editor has asked for a deletion review of New Zealand – Pakistan relations. 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. )
As you can see, I disagree with you, but this whole process seems byzantine even by wikipedia standards. If i've interpreted the situation correctly, my proposal seems the best outcome for now. [6] Bali ultimate ( talk) 14:42, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
I think this was a very thoughtful closure. I appreciate that you clearly and fully expressed your reasoning, which I believe will prevent unnecessary drama over what could have been a controversial close. لenna vecia 12:41, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Looks like we both had the same idea. (I fixed it) -- Ron Ritzman ( talk) 13:18, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
The need to express oneself clearly and concisely is an age-old principle and is not some newfangled idea of the internet age. William Strunk said it best, almost a century ago:
Refusing to make even a minimal effort to express oneself clearly and concisely is a mark of arrogance toward the reader. Short Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 16:36, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Why did you get rid of this content = http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Geography_of_the_Former_Republic_of_Serbian_Krajina&oldid=293520537 Geography is not just physical landforms. This entity had unique population, political and economic characteristics that have nothing to do with modern day croatia. Population Geography does change. Geography is not just landforms like the person was suggesting in the talk page. ( LAz17 ( talk) 13:31, 9 June 2009 (UTC)).
Since you got so much flack over some of your other closures of these AfDs, I want you to know that as nominator I think you made the correct decision in that there was no consensus. Thanks for being willing to close these and for doing a good job of it. Drawn Some ( talk) 13:42, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
I think your close was quite appropriate, but how long do you think it will last before it's overturned? Who then was a gentleman? ( talk) 19:57, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
If you have some time at some point (there is no hurry) I would be interested in getting another opinion on a couple of things that have been bothering me. I'm just trying to devine the societal perspectives on a couple of things.
You are familiar enough with the wikipedia user WMC topic banning Abd and Hipocrite. I am not sure if you followed the actions related to JzG banning Jed Rothwell. These are all Cold Fusion related dramas.
I had asked wikipedia user WMC some clarifying questions here. He responded but not necessarily in a complete way (i.e. some points he didn't address). Given our mutual history I don't really want to belabor my points there so I am looking for other points of view.
One of the things that concerns me in both the Jed Rothwell case and now the Abd and Hipocrite case is that in both cases the bans were imposed with little or no community discussion or formal assessment of consensus to justify the bans. I have contended that if these bans are truly bans in the WP:BAN sense of a ban that they should be duly recorded at WP:RESTRICT as such. This seems the normal and sensible thing to do and yet both JzG and now wikipedia user WMC have declined to take that step.
Do you believe that these Administrative actions (and I mean this generally, these two cases are simply examples that I know of) truly do constitute a ban in the WP:BAN sense of such a thing? And if they are why are the Administrators shying away from recording them? Any thoughts?
As I said, no need to hurry with a response, or even to reply at all if you are too busy. I am just reviewing various opinions as a means discerning the proper way to view these issues within the context of Administrator norms and policies. Your input would be welcome.
Thanks,
-- GoRight ( talk) 22:26, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi, you have recently deleted an article P.R.Harikumar based on the consensus at AfD. I think the article you have deleted was a redirect to the article P. R. Harikumar which was the target article intended to get deleted at AfD. The mistake would have happened because while the AfD was in progress I have moved the article P.R.Harikumar to P. R. Harikumar per naming convention. I am sorry that I failed to notify this in the AfD. Salih (talk) 05:54, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
I disagree with your closure of the Poppler (software) AFD. There seems to be no consensus to redirect to xpdf. Only a single editor called for that. Further, User:Gnepets began to clean the article up today. He added at least one third-party source re. poppler. The closure seems premature to me. Can you please revert this redirect and relist discussion so that we can discuss Gnepets's constructive changes? -- Karnesky ( talk) 21:11, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
I wanted to throw a couple lines in the Transporter 3 article that Natalya Rudakova was redirected to (more than likely under the Cast section). Is there an archive or history available to pull from? I don't know where to look and was hoping to pull a little bit of info and sources from any preserved text. Cptnono ( talk) 05:47, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm actually neutral on your proposal. You asked for feedback, you are getting it. Gigs ( talk) 12:53, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Scott Campbell (blogger). 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. Scott ( talk) 18:03, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
You should not have redirected that article. You may not agree with the outcome, and it may not be a "vote", but the overwhelming consensus from four attempts to delete the article have been to keep it. Only one or two people recommended a redirect, including the person who tried to delete it every time. You may not agree with the consensus, but Wikipedia works by consensus. Please do not redirect the article against consensus. Jayhawk of Justice ( talk) 18:03, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Congrats, you've been approved by the arbitration committee as one of the uninvolved admins to help settle Macedonia naming issues. The centralized discussion is at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Macedonia. The arbitration case final decision is at WP:ARBMAC2. See especially this remedy. Admins User:Shell Kinney and User:J.delanoy form the triumvirate with you. Thank you for your assistance. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:16, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi. You recently deleted the article Damon Vickers. Although the article was in the words of one person at AfD "vanispamisement," I think that the subject was unquestionably notable. Thus, I was wondering if you would be so kind as to userify the article for me so that I might source it properly and do my best on the NPOV problems. Thanks! Cool3 ( talk) 22:13, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
You wrote: The result was no consensus. Fritzpoll (talk) 20:28, 13 June 2009 (UTC) [edit] Justus Weiner
The result was six votes to delete and three to keep plus one weak keep. That is nearly two thirds in favor of deletion. What is consensus on Wikipedia?
Thanks.
Skywriter ( talk) 22:27, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, it does. Thanks. Skywriter ( talk) 20:04, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
User:Fritzpoll/Archive 5 has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, Peace, A record of your Day will always be kept here. |
For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:03, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Can you close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abdullah Al Hilali? Thanks Dr. Blofeld White cat 17:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Fritzpoll, I don't know if you are familiar with the history of ScienceApologists's spelling corrections to articles covered by his topic ban. The community, in that case, quite clearly considered that harmless edits, non-controversial, did not violate his ban, and multiple attempts were made at Arbitration Enforcement, by an editor probably cooperating with ScienceApologist, trying to make a point, to complain about spelling corrections. Nobody wanted to hear it. I later raised the issue of such edits complicating ban enforcement, and that's where self-reversion was suggested and discussed. I cleared it with an arbitrator before suggesting it to ScienceApologist, self-reverted edits that would violate many different policies are considered to not actually do so.
Thus "no edit" overstates the actual situation. As is typical on Wikipedia, there are exceptions to every rule. I have seen and tested -- inadvertently -- a situation where promptly reverting the edit of a banned user violated policy, for example.
Your closing implies there is a policy on this. I don't see it, nothing explicit. I'm going to try to make it explicit, so that there is no confusion over this: the reality is that policy doesn't cover the situation, as far as I can see, and, while it seemed that the community was united on this in actual practice, in the ScienceApologist case, it may depend on whose ox is being gored. I was blocked for doing much less than what he did with impunity. (His spelling corrections were harmless, but he was clearly, by a pattern of such edits, and by other disruption as well as declared intention, seeking to complicate ban enforcement, that's why self-reversion was suggested then, because it bypasses the enforcement problem as any kind of emergency. I've pointed out in one discussion that if a banned editor actually does this -- even a site-banned editor -- it can turn enforcement into productive edits, as someone reviewing the edits of a banned user sees these self-reverted edits, decides to look at them (not obligatory!) and sees a spelling correction to put in with a single undo.
I.e., site banned and blocked editor comes in as IP and makes a spelling correction, and states, with the edit, "will revert per site ban." Then, reverts with edit summary, "Reverting per ban of IveBeenNaughty."
Is this a ban violation that would lead to a lengthening of the ban? Is this block evasion? I would claim, no, not unless the edit itself was disruptive beyond being a technical evasion. In substance, it cooperates with the ban, and seeks to help with the project even while banned.
Most blocked and banned editors won't do this, to be sure, but this would allow that subclass of editors who really do want to help the project do so, and show cooperation.
We should nail this down to avoid contentious discussions in the future. Isolated harmless edits, not controversial in themselves, don't violate policy no matter how stringently we have banned the editor. And a self-reverted edit is doubly safe, and establishes a possibility of cooperation. That's what happened with editor User:PJHaseldine, who was banned from an article. He made quite a substantial edit, which he then self-reverted per my suggestion. A discussion ensued where most of his edit, I believe, was accepted. It was quite efficient, and has, I'm sure, improved communication there. I think he's continued to use this technique without a problem. -- Abd ( talk) 17:46, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi, you made a decision concerning the Justus Weiner page, one I did not necessarily agree with but accepted. I spent the last couple of days working hard on that article to improve it and all of my work has been disregarded with a revert back to an old version that has errors, is biased and has a litany of violations such as attacking another individual in a headline.
I have gone to the person in question who has continuously reverted my work for several weeks and have asked for discussion. There has been nothing but reverts.
My question to you is this. What's next? Should people who do not agree with the person who is reverting the article back to what he likes leave it alone, including the errors of fact, attacks on another individual and gross prejudice, or is there another way to approach this? Thanks. Skywriter ( talk) 20:00, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
In reading the AFD, did you notice that many of the participants failed to understand the use British academic titles? British understatement results in titles like Senior Lecturer, Tutor, etc. being quite prestigious. Also he authored three notable books not one (all published in 3rd party sources and found in libraries around the world). Publishing this many books is in fact somewhat rare among academics and qualifies per WP:CREATIVE. Would you consider closing it as no consensus? -- Firefly322 ( talk) 22:00, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Did you read my message? Dr. Blofeld White cat 10:46, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. Let's hope you also have some peace from the various things that come your way. Dr. Blofeld White cat 12:42, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Emailed. Dr. Blofeld White cat 13:42, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
You deleted the air gear kings and roads page. I was going to put the sources on it just have been really busy. All that information was about an anime and that took a very long time to create. Bring it back and I will fix it so it is to your "standards". Please bring it back. This Is Wikipedia as long as the information is correct there should be no porblem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.174.0.7 ( talk) 11:13, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for carefully explaining the issues to me Fritzpoll. I appreciate your efforts. Now Gwen Gale is vanishing my account, I am very happy and I will have no further cause to make requests. I thank you so much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.208.167.101 ( talk) 13:24, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
In Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion/Macedonia/main articles, could you please delete this [9] edit?
I base my request at Wikipedia:Talk#Behavior_that_is_unacceptable which states that users should not misrepresent other people. I have nothing against Taivo and I don't want a block on him or anything. But that post with a plethora of incorrect summaries that also attempts to falsely attest the driving force behind my contributions, does not give even the slightest amount of credit to the meaning of long conversations that I have engaged regarding to the quoted samples.
Thank you. Shadowmorph ^"^ 13:14, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Please have a look at this and this. I believe that Future Perfect and I should be able to resolve this like gentlemen, but if things get out of hand I would expect you to intervene to prevent incivility. -- Radjenef ( talk) 13:52, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia_talk:Centralized_discussion/Macedonia#Page_protected ASAP. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:13, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
19-June-09: I see that you deleted the disambiguation page " Designated", so I have assigned that title as a redirection page, instead. I did not continue discussion, once I realized that the AfD-page ( Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Designated) was violating WP policies, especially by using WP:Wikilawyering to deny the use of the word "designated" with multiple meanings. I really just wanted to see if anyone else could detect the tactics of "gaming the system" ( WP:GAMING) and the use of WP:Sockpuppets in the "votes" to delete that page. I know you must be busy, but I'm afraid you've been played for a fool, and conned into believing that, somehow, several independent people, quickly, wanted that page gone. In fact, several hundred people a day (hence, hundreds of independent users) had been requesting the page " Designated" for the content it provided. Again, I'm sorry those guys fooled you. Perhaps, always check the edit-history of the last few people to vote for delete: did they edit any other articles during the past 6 months? - Wikid77 ( talk) 03:38, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Is there anything can be done to restore the SWARL (Short Wave Amateur Radio Listening) article? It's not quite cleat to me why that was speedy deleted? Of course I read the discussion about it but the final decision looks to me too quick. I would rather give some notices on the content and let the author fix it. I feel like I have to explain the situation around SWARL: There was a SWARL Yahoo group and the informational website that comes up at first if you make search for SWARL in google. Both of those have been created by Steve Carter who passed it on to the crew with Marshall Cubitt (I'm member of this crew - Yury Bondarenko, you can see the full list of the crew at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SWARL/ and the URL of our site there too, which is http://swarl.org) SWARL Yahoo group is one of the largest groups on this topic, and the site swarl.org contains supporting information (read: club information) According to Steve Carter, he does not have access to the old site of SWARL and he tried to convince hoster of it to remove content of it, but with no success. So, SWARL has desided to start a new site http://swarl.org , it is very new site and there are not many links to it yet, but we are working on links corrections. The article about SWARL on Wikipedia was containing the most important info about our club and we would really like to restore it. If we need to correct our article in any way, please inform me. I could see there is an article about ARRL and our club is no lesser importance to SWLs in the world as ARRL to American HAMs. There are only three organizations left in the world that issue international SWL call signs and keep track of them. We have got 794 SWL call signs issued and this number increases every day. There is a big interest in SWLing among people who has receiver. Well I hope I didnt take too much of your time by this explanation and really hope to get our article on Wikipedia back. Brack11 ( talk) 20:24, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
I will not repeat the alterations to the citations and I respect it when I am reverted. However I thought I did the right thing. Shadowmorph ^"^ 20:13, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Please see WP:AE#SQRT5P1D2 and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Request for clarification: SQRT5P1D2. You may have a view on this situation. -- ChrisO ( talk) 08:31, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
In detemining an actual consensus, consider if the comments are neutral, or somehow, unbalanced to try to mislead other people's opinions. If comments are not genuine, then the whole process is likely highly distorted. Why? ...because where there's smoke there's fire: even one misleading comment opens the door to a possible firestorm of confusion and incorrect opinions. For that reason, if an AfD discussion involves suspicious opinions, then perhaps, the entire discussion has been slanted (in other ways not easily seen). I did not identify problems earlier, just to see if anyone else noticed, and to see if Wikipedia would delete an article that was attacked by suspicious opinions. I did not mean to be intentionally vague, nor suggest an unending fishing expedition.
Specifically, there are unlikely "random" opinions: consider the 13-days of contributions of a new user, now inactive for 10 days:
Special:Contributions/Martin_Raybourne.
See his opinion at end of:
Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Designated. This issue is not a priority; I work on thousands of articles, and I don't wish anyone to get upset about one page. I merely note:
I would recommend checking for hints (smoke) of unbalanced activity, and then consider the possibility that the consensus is being slanted in a unseen fire of inaccurate opinions. I am not blaming anyone for this situation, I merely note that there are such problems with Wikipedia's current policies about consensus.
Starting a "witchhunt" now could cause many problems: long-term users are involved. Instead, just realize that unbalanced opinions were listed, and try to be more aware when checking the next AfD. I suggest putting an AfD on hold, when new users start adding "random" opinions, without starting a witchhunt, and just declare that the matter requires "more time" to be re-opened for other users' opinions. There would be no automatic
witchhunt for puppets or canvassing, but also no instant deletes, using the easy-excuse that more opinions were needed. Hence, just delay a suspicious AfD. -
Wikid77 (
talk)
12:58, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Re. this, I have merged the material to Mayu Sakai. You said you wanted to do something to preserve attribution. -- Apoc2400 ( talk) 13:46, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
I've suggested a way to reduce the amount of clutter that we're likely to have in the envisaged public RfC. Please see Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion/Macedonia#Winnowing proposals - grateful for comments. -- ChrisO ( talk) 19:05, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
LOL why is it Fritz that you seem to attract people in droves who are more interested in policies and proposals rather than on specific article content? Hehe. Why is it nobody visits your talk page for a "normal" not arb like conversation!! Dr. Blofeld White cat 19:14, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Nope. What is it? Dr. Blofeld White cat 20:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Surprised we don't have an article on it. I guess its one of the general topics which are of high encyclopedic value that are missing from the project. If we think generally rather than specificially we could be providing an overview on a huge number of topics. I studied a bit of electoral reform for A level particularly the period 1829-1848. I'm sure a mass could be written about it so go for it! Dr. Blofeld White cat 22:50, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi Fritzpoll. I think that some of the users who showed interest in the discussion here should be notified of the winnowing proposals section, in case they have not noticed it. Cheers, Balkan Fever 12:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
The record shows you closed the {{ afd}} for Gregory McMillion.
The nominator failed to comply with the recommendations in the deletion policies that nominators show good faith by informing the individual who uploaded or created the article.
Since I didn't have a chance to defend the article at its {{ afd}}, or to make changes to address the concerns raised there, I would appreciate it if you could userify it to User:Geo Swan/review/Gregory McMillion. I'd like to request its full revision history and its talk page too please.
Thanks! Geo Swan ( talk) 03:05, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
I am talking about myself in the Macedonia discussion. I try to keep a low tone and when one issue is rest (like the one about a few edits I made about citation styles that were reverted and I never edit warred about them), another one is raised against me. The latest one was that I am "Swamping the case pages with nonsensical proposals". I don't focus at the incivil implications of the word "nonsensical", someone may judge them to be nonsense, or "bulshit" (a word used about another user's arguments). However sustained attacks on my good faith without a reason (I thought having many proposals were the objective, not something to be avoided) is not something I can accept. Shadowmorph ^"^ 14:20, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
How many attacks can one account sustain?
I'd say roughly 763? Dr. Blofeld White cat 19:08, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Hehe :) make that 764 with this [12] semi-accusation of canvassing. Shadowmorph ^"^ 17:20, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Fritzpoll, what do you think? [13] Should Odin5000's rant be allowed to stand? His contributions are very suspicious - this looks like a sleeper sockpuppet account, probably of one of the numerous editors who have been blocked for disruption in this topic area (possibly one of those banned by the ArbCom?). -- ChrisO ( talk) 16:07, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Since you are involved in the discussion concerning the removal of Proposal G, I am informing you of the request for clarification I have put forth [14]. I am only doing this because I believe that the greater community should have a chance of seeing and evaluating the proposal by itself. I highly regard all of the effort that you have put in this discussion, so far, and wish to thank you for it. -- Radjenef ( talk) 17:40, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
You said you'll get back to me shortly but I still waiting for an answer
Brack11 ( talk) 12:34, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
If you take a look at the front page of SWARL yahoo group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/swarl/ which is our main representation on the web, you can see that it says "web site swarl.org" and the SWARL is the same club as e.g. ARRL, with over 800 members, very rapidly growing. What kind of independent reliable sources can I provide? we are the main source of information about ourselves. Can I please restore the article? The website of SWARL contains essential information about purposes of the club, as well as participation information. Brack11 ( talk) 09:37, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Brack11 ( talk) 22:26, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
here are some links to us from independed sites:
But the site is very new, so, it is in promotional status and I dont know how reliable you may see the sources above. Can you give an example of reliable source that we could provide? Brack11 ( talk) 11:10, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
User:Radjenef is making unilateral edits to proposal text without discussing them first ( [15] [16] [17]), even though we already entered the RfC phase. I reverted them with explanatory comments ( [18] [19] [20]). Could you please take a look at this and clarify whether such unilateral edits are allowed at this point?
It was not clear to me what is the status of proposals at this point. If reverting was the wrong thing to do, I apologize and I will accept any sanctions you deem appropriate. -- Grnch ( talk) 02:29, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Also, please check here and in the talk page for my version of what's happening. -- Radjenef ( talk) 02:39, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
No problem with the Merge - I've had very little time to work on that article (had another article on DYK on Wednesday that took more time). Thanks. ( talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:35, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi Fritz. I wonder if you'd be so kind as to move the deleted article into my userspace? It seems like the kind of hard hitting and important encyclopedia article subject I may want to work on in the near future. Have a great weekend. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 18:55, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Common End, Colkirk. 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. (Not the nominator; just notifying you [although I would note that you might at least want to tweak your closing statement, which to the extent that it means to state a categorical rule overreaches; there is, of course, a longstanding consensus that certain geographic features—of which this, it should be said, is probably not one—that are necessarily notable, irrespective of their having received the treatment contemplated by GNG, such that the general absolute proposition that "we have no policies or guidelines to support an exemption [from the idea that existence is not sufficient for an article] in the case of geographical entities" cannot be said to command the support of the community].) Cheers, Joe ( talk) 20:02, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
I saw your delete and redirect for Maria Belen Shapur. This is extremely destructive. Please restore the article then change to a redirect.
There is text that people wrote and references that people got. You can easily change the article from the text to a direct WITHOUT deleting the text permanently. Then if there are troublemakers who re-create the article, they can be punished. However, do not censure and book burn.
By delete it, you have also destroyed all of the talk pages that accompanied the article. By keeping a paper trail, this helps any kind of future archeological research that one might do in wikipedia.
If you do what I suggested (blank the article then make it a redirect) then knowledge is not lost but the article is cleaned up. This is one of the least controversial actions rather than deleting the article and changing it to a redirect. Note that for the AFD, I made analytical comments and did not advocate keep or delete. Because of this, I am even more neutral and objective than you.
Thank you. User F203 ( talk) 19:44, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
There was not a consensus to delete but rather some favoring delete and some keep. I did not offer an opinion in the AFD except for analytical comments.
Please make the article available to me so that I can review the text of the article and the references. After this review, the article can be deleted. Thank you. User F203 ( talk) 21:38, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I was actually in the process of typing messages to both you and F203 when I noticed your comment. I am normally happy to provide access to material, and thought this the best route as it preserved the edit history (in case a partial merge was performed). If you feel that it is best that the content is deleted, you are welcome to overturn my actions, as you are more familiar with the subject matter than myself. What were your reasons for refusal? J Milburn ( talk) 22:21, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Sorry that you are mad, Fritzpoll. Because of fading memory, I did not know if there were any references that could improve the related article. If I knew, then I would have clearly stated it. Since I just had a suspicion that there were some references worth saving, I asked to review it and did mention that the deleted material included some references.
I think this has been discussed enough. Good luck in WP. User F203 ( talk) 18:20, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
I saw this article on the main page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Pakistan_Army_Mil_Mi-17_crash
I immediately thought whether or not this article should be deleted. Obscure articles hidden in Wikipedia is a different matter. Having an improper article on the main page is egg on our face.
What do you think?
WP:AIRCRASH does or does not meet this? User F203 ( talk) 19:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
I am not on a delete mission. The article is more of a news event than an encyclopedic article. However, it's not so trivial that deletion is urgent. Furthermore, there doesn't seem to be a guideline for military crashes except that perhaps 1 man training accidents don't usually qualify. Thanks for your assessment. User F203 ( talk) 20:46, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
I've been thinking. Wikipedia is a funny place. There the age old arguments. Delete/keep. Israel/Gaza. Macedonia and FYRM and Macedonia sockpuppets. Also some very sloppy articles. Lots of news. Yet, the scholarly writing of an encyclopedic article is only a small portion of edits. You don't have to comment...it's just like talking about the weather. User F203 ( talk) 23:08, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Per the DRV. :) Let me begin by asking you a question.
Is a sysop like a clerk to a working group, tasked with recording and implementing their decisions? Or is the sysop more like an executive listening to a board of advisers, and deciding which to listen to and which to disregard?— S Marshall Talk/ Cont 21:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Compare RFA with AfD. Both have a similar structure, with a nomination and arguments. But with an RFA, I think you'll agree with me that it doesn't matter which crat makes the close.
At AfD, I think the situation is quite the reverse. I think how it's closed is a lottery that depends on the closer.
Gonna pause in this line of argument at this point, so as to give you a chance to poke holes in my mistakes. :)— S Marshall Talk/ Cont 22:51, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
The question we're considering is the case where the local consensus and the global consensus are at odds with one another, and I think the solution is not for the admin to disregard the local consensus in closing. I think admins are supposed to guide the local consensus in these cases (and not, in the vast majority of cases, to overrule it).
I think that where the local consensus and the global consensus are at odds with one another, the sysop needs to refrain from closing and !vote instead. You see, another admin will be along to close shortly, and this new admin will then have a better consensus to deal with.
The point of this is to avoid not just abuse, but the appearance of abuse.— S Marshall Talk/ Cont 08:34, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
If we're dealing with cases where a "flurry" of admins would be necessary to create a swing, then we're actually dealing with a matter well-covered by policy, because what we have is a local consensus to suspend the global consensus in this one particular case — in which case there's already a clear rule.— S Marshall Talk/ Cont 09:59, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Is this "demonstrable benefit to the encyclopaedia"? Where do you set the bar?— S Marshall Talk/ Cont 10:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
My position is that "consensus" is, by its very nature, a group decision-making process, and that the admin's role is to implement the group's view—and that per well-established policy, a local consensus can suspend a global one in particular cases.
A !vote count may not represent the group's view, but in the absence of bad faith or sockpuppetry, it's strongly indicative of it.
This isn't to say that there are no circumstances in which the closer should disregard the consensus. A BLP concern, a copyvio, an attack page or other genuine issue involving direct harm to someone would earn an "endorse" from me at DRV.
On the other hand, in places like dispute resolution, admins are charged not to overrule the consensus, but to guide it and influence it so it reaches an appropriate conclusion. My position is that this applies to AfD as well, insofar as editors are engaged in collegial, good-faith discussion.— S Marshall Talk/ Cont 11:07, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
The key point there is that I feel, in such cases, the closer should look for a refutation in the actual discussion. Where it is in the discussion doesn't seem so relevant to me.— S Marshall Talk/ Cont 14:31, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
[21] This is A, not B. Dc76\ talk 18:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi. Any idea how you can {{subst: a surname in the page title to DEFAULTSORT sort the categories? Its just I have a large batch of German politicians to transwiki and I want to do it more quickly. So basically when you create the page it automatically places e.g Fritz Baier as Baier, Fritz in the categories. If not I gather there is a bot that can default sort the categories by surname and fix it afterwards? Dr. Blofeld White cat 10:17, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
|
The Townhall of Münster Award
goes to Fritzpoll for helping to end the Thirty Months Macedonian naming wars. |
And now for the party …
|
---|
![]() |
![]() |
The Golden Wiki Award | |
For your exceptional contributions in dispute resolution, specifically, handling the centralized discussion that was a result of the arbitration case ARBMAC2, I award you this Golden Wiki Award. Outstanding job! Rlevse 22:03, 10 July 2009 (UTC) |
Do you have any thoughts about differentiating the notability (criminal acts), specifically murder with the not news guideline?
Often, there's a sensationalist murder that gets a lot of news attention. Sometimes, it's just for a week or so. Some very significant murders are covered by print encyclopedias but many murders of questionable notability do not.
I have no preconceived idea to expand or limit the number of murder articles. I just think that there is a lack of guidance to what is notable.
Is there a role for a separate WP:N/M, M for murder?
What do you think about changing the criteria a bit? Should the criteria for old murders be the same as current murders (probably yes)? Would there ever be support for the idea that only the exceptional murder is notable within 3 months to avoid the "murder of the month".
There is a murder of the month. The current murder of the month is the Nashville former football player.
I'm writing to you because you seem to be interested in the WP:N/CA topic. After becoming better acquainted with the subject, I might bring it up there. User F203 ( talk) 15:02, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Any reason? Tan | 39 14:42, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Dear fellow Wikipedian, on behalf of the Kindness campaign, I just want to wish you a Happy Bastille Day, whether you are French, Republican or not! :) Happy Editing! Sincerely, -- A Nobody My talk 22:20, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi, why didn't you answer me?. Any idea how you can {{subst: a surname in the page title to DEFAULTSORT sort the categories? Its just I have a large batch of German politicians to transwiki and I want to do it more quickly. So basically when you create the page it automatically places e.g Fritz Baier as Baier, Fritz in the categories. If not I gather there is a bot that can default sort the categories by surname and fix it afterwards? Dr. Blofeld White cat 10:17, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
I noticed, more fun and games I see. Always trouble in the Balkans!. Mmm I was hoping ther ewould be something quite simple available, as automatic DEFAULT sorting would seem like a basic operational tool. Trust all is well. Dr. Blofeld White cat 10:38, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
As can be seen in this history you reverted my bad revert, thanks. I accidently hit rollback. I did try to fix my error but you were fast and beat me to it. Thanks for that though, I appreciate not being beat up over my stupidity today. :) Thanks again, -- CrohnieGal Talk 12:16, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
I think I'm ready to start building the first of the glossary articles now. The first article I'd like userfied is List of Internet Relay Chat clients ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). As best I can tell from mirrored copies I uncovered with Google, this should be good base to build the client glossary outline on top of. -- Tothwolf ( talk) 03:25, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
This is a fuller explanation of my viewpoint. You thought that the "AfD result has upset" me, but no, instead, I'm quite happy: the AfD-delete has provided evidence I need to analyze policy implications. Please don't think my criticisms of Wikipedia policies are an attack on the people: these problems should not be "blamed" on individuals who think they are just following the policies. And I like your suggestion about creating a guideline for subarticles.
I use terms like "Weakipedia" to emphasize that the system has serious hollow-article problems. Of 10 million registered users, 98% quit within 1 month: that also seems like a problem to solve. So, I don't blame any one person for deleting the top article #497 (of current reader's interest); that deletion is the result of current policies that advise people to ignore Google hits & reader interest.
Meanwhile, as I calculated, that CoMJ article answered the pageviews of 215,000 people, very likely influencing 1.5 million, and provided quick facts to 96% of people who were interested. What a great win for Wikipedia! That's fantastic, and you also helped by suggesting areas for improvement/concern, changed during those 215,000 pageviews, so thank you as well. Plus, as you had noted about libel/WP:BLP issues, after those 215,000 people got their answers, now the article is gone, and hence we don't have to worry that someone would vandalize the article to be embarrassingly read by 8,000 people per day, in the future. The AfD-delete has provided a resting-period, where people have time to re-consider policies, as to how they would rewrite/protect such popular information in the future, while AfD-deletion had been delayed until 96% of people read their factual answers (because the article remained coherent most of the time, due to your rescues!). Plus, this situation happened, at a time in history, when millions were mourning and concerned about those children's outlook. Hence, I think we should all be relieved and calm at this point. -
Wikid77 (
talk)
08:41, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for signing up for the Great Wikipedia Dramaout. Wikipedia stands to benefit from the improvements in the article space as a result of this campaign. This is a double reminder. First, the campaign begins on July 18, 2009 at 00:00 (UTC). Second, please remember to log any articles you have worked on during the campaign at Wikipedia:The Great Wikipedia Dramaout/Log. Thanks again for your participation! -- Jayron32. talk. say no to drama 22:01, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank you again for your support of the Great Wikipedia Dramaout. Preliminary statistics indicate that 129 new articles were created, 203 other articles were improved, and 183 images were uploaded. Additionally, 41 articles were nominated for DYK, of which at least 2 have already been promoted. There are currently also 8 articles up for GA status and 3 up for FA/FL status. Though the campaign is technically over, please continue to update the log page at WP:NODRAMA/L with any articles which you worked during the campaign, and also to note any that receive commendation, such as DYK, GA or FA status. You may find the following links helpful in nominating your work:
Again, thank you for making this event a success! -- Jayron32. talk. say no to drama 02:20, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
What do you get when you cross Julian McMahon with Tom Jones eh? A German politician? LOL!! Dr. Blofeld White cat 16:26, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi. In light of recent events and community concerns about the way in which content is transferred I have proposed a new wikiproject which would attempt to address any of the concerns and done in an environment where a major group of editors work together to transfer articles from other wikipedias in the most effective way possible without BLP or referencing problems. Please offer your thoughts at the proposal and whether or not you support or oppose the idea of a wikiproject dedicated to organizing a more efficient process of getting articles in different languages translated into English. Dr. Blofeld White cat 13:00, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Re [22] - you might want to clarify what you mean by "notified". If you mean "put on their talk page" you should say so; otherwise it can be interpreted as "put on a page you know they will read". As for the "recorded centrally": if you have a page in mind, you should specify it. If you haven't, then there is a problem William M. Connolley ( talk) 12:52, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi. As I pointed out there, I think you missed this diff [23]. Hipocrite read about the page-bans on talk:cold fusion, accepted them and did not request separate notification. Cheers, Mathsci ( talk) 13:17, 6 August 2009 (UTC)