User talk:Spartaz/Archive7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Note to self: Clean up http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Whatlinkshere/S.T.A.R.S._%28Resident_Evil%29

Xarchive Temp. restore request

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Xarchive. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. I would like the source emailed to me, if possible, along with the username of the original author, so that I can work on a more satisfactory version of the article. Tim Ross·talk 19:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Tim. I sent you the text. The creating editor appears to have been inactive for over a year. Just so you know, in future if you need a deleted article, you can just leave me a note here without needing to take it to DRV. Spartaz Humbug! 22:43, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your offer of future help, Spartaz, and may well need to take you up on that in the future. In the meantime, I have done just about the best I can on the Xarchiver article, and am about to put it back into circulation! I'll keep my fingers crossed. Tim Ross·talk 19:58, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for taking care of the DRV requirement on the Xarchiver article. I wasn't aware of that need. I'll add some comments. Tim Ross·talk 18:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Protected titles/Twinkle

FYI, you no longer need to protect titles that way. Deleted pages can now be protected directly. If you go to a non-existent page, you should have a "protect" button that you can use to set the protection level just like you would a regular page. If it doesn't show up, you may need to purge your browser cache. --B (talk) 18:43, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Naked Women's Wrestling League

Hey, when you created the AfD page, you didn't tag the article with the afd tag. I've done that for you, and commented on the AfD. Corvus cornixtalk 18:03, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem.  :) Corvus cornixtalk 18:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Admin

Not yet. Maybe some day. Thanks. Corvus cornixtalk 22:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

WT AN3RR

Hello. I moved your comment from WT, to WP:AN, There had already started a thread there. Feel free to move the intire thread back over if need be, but I Wanted to keep it all in one place. Regards, Mercury 17:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Since the discussion concerns AN3 we should use the talk page at AN3. Spartaz Humbug! 18:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
That is ok. Cheers! Mercury 18:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I've moved it. The reason it was at AN, was to give notice that I had changed all the headers to prepare the page for archiving. It has never been archived because the bot could not handle the level 3 headers. I may have posted it into the wrpng place. My apologies. Regards, Mercury 19:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Kaltura

Thanks for offering your help in working on my draft for Kaltura at User:Lishkee/Kaltura. Can you please let me know how you'd like to go about editing it and how we can get it recreated? Thanks again, Lisa Lishkee (talk) 19:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)  Done since there are comments at DRV and the article talk page. I'll just record I have had alook at it. Now it just needs other editors at DRV to review it and comment on the recreation or you can just revert me and leave it as it was. Spartaz Humbug! 21:20, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Rough consensus

Not seeing it, please consider reverting. Mercury 21:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I already commented in response. Why are you so tied into this? You are no longer a regular reviewing admin at AN3 - and weren't even before you lost your bit. Of those regulars who have commented on the timescale its 3-1 and B hasn't commented since I responded to their comment. Let's keep the discussion at AN3 shall we? Spartaz Humbug! 21:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
You are absolutely correct. I'll keep discussions centralized, and since I'm not an admin anymore, I won't comment on the archival frequency. Set it when you feel there is good consensus. I'll just run the bot. Regards, Mercury 21:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Your recent DRV close

Thank you. If you register an email address with Wikipedia, or email me privately, I can give you more information. This is a delicate situation and progress is being made. Your decision to close that DRV early was the right one.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Richard L. Hasen

Regarding your decision on the Richard L. Hasen article, is there no way to get a copy of the articled restored to a discussion section of my talk page until a new article can be written? Or some other way to retrieve the legitimate content? Electiontechnology (talk) 02:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC) No, sorry. It was a copyvio from the get go. You need to start from scratch. Spartaz Humbug! 06:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

FYI

I think Ray andrew (talk · contribs) may have found a way around his 3RR block and created a new account (Proctor spock (talk · contribs)). I've submitted a checkuser request, in case you're interested: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Ray andrew. I'm not sure what the next step is (I see the pages get categorized in to CAT:RFCU, but I'm not sure if it's up to a clerk to list it on the main RFCU page or if it can be done by anyone). As far as this new users edits go, instead of reverting the image (as Ray andrew did), this new user simply removed the image from the article. It just seems highly unlikely someone would sign up and make this their first four edits. —Locke Cole • t • c 10:41, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

You can transclude it yourself. I already had a checkuser done on trhe history of the image as there were obvious socks on both sides. Came up zip. I imagine the sockmaster on this occasion has also covered their tracks. Spartaz Humbug! 12:25, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

If this has anything to do with me, everclear0411, I have no idea who the hell these people are and little idea what, if anything I did. Stuff like this is why I would usually avoid wikipedia. I saw a graph earlier in the night, needed it for something, went back and POOF it was gone, despite it's correctness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Everclear0411 (talk • contribs) 17:06, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Talk Page

Can my talk page be unprotected. --67.86.43.59 (talk) 13:48, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[1] Spartaz Humbug! 16:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

The block expired so it makes sense to unprotect it. --67.86.43.59 (talk) 16:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: 67.86.43.59

Hi Spartaz. I think we can unblock and see what happens, with the assurance that if abusive behaviour continues then I'll quadruple the original block, making it a year long hardblock, and also with the guarantee that I'll be checking regularly for abuse. That way it gives them a chance to prove that they're either going to change their ways or that it's no longer the same person (which is unlikely but not improbable). --Deskana (talk) 17:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Restore request for Liancourt Rocks

Upon what decision did you delete this article? I'm just aghast, I don't understand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 18:17, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

See the discussion at ANI. Spartaz Humbug! 19:00, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Spartaz, as an editor who tries to make Korean-related articles better, I want to thank you for you bold actions today. Phlegmswicke of Numbtardia (talk) 19:29, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, you deserve a lot of credit for finally cutting the Gordian knot. Cheers. --Folantin (talk) 19:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

sorry

sorry about that, its a lingering habit of not writing edit summaries. btw, when did you remove the "history" section and lock the article? I was gone for like a month. Good friend100 (talk) 00:24, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

thanks for the rollback privileges

Cheers, Ansell 09:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

AFD Debates

Hi Spartaz. First off, I think your comments on my talkpage were a little uncivil towards me. You may like to know that I have taken up Admin Coaching. My coaching page, if you wish to look is here. Please look at this section within my coaching page. I am opting to close many AFD's as this will help me when possibly being an administrator in the future. When (and if) I do become an admin, I will be closing AFD's on a regular basis, therefore I need to learn about how AFD works and how to close deletion debates and stuff early. The Big White Taxi Service AFD, I closed as No Consensus, default Keep. My coach tended to agree with me, stating that I was being bold. While coming to my decision for the AFD, I noted that the article in question did have suitable sources (even though it probably should have more) and that most of the Keep votes suggested that the article was notable. With all the decisions included it would be 5:4:1 (Keep:Delete:Merge). So, either way, if any of the Keep votes were inappropriate in any way, it would of still of been No Consensus. For the Virginia Tech Lacrosse and Soccer Stadium AFD, your probably right that I shouldn't of closed the AFD as I gave my opinion in it, with the Keep decision. Despite that, most of the articles located in this template have been created, so even with a Deletion Review, I firmly believe it would survive the DR. If you do disagree with my decision, take it to DR. I apologise if you feel that some of these closes are bold, however, this is a learning process for me in AFD's. At least, now that I know for future reference to only close AFD's which I have not competed in, and not to make this error again. If you want to take the above 2 to DR please do. Cheers. D.M.N. (talk) 17:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

A few mistakes at the outset are to be expected. The Transhumanist 10:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Poking

With respect, if you read what I wrote, I do recall asking El-C repeatedly fairly specific questions; perhaps you could tell me how they approached harassment. I would point out that each time, he chose not to answer them, instead interposing his own questions. I am the one wanting to learn here.And forgive me, but I tend to expect the admins to be a tad more forthcoming than the editors. When I am repeatedly asked for info that I pointedly direct him to, I have to consider the distinct possibility that my arguments aren't getting listened to. As this seems to be the second time that he and Dmcdevit have seemingly jumped to DG's defense, I am just saying that it doesn't paint a necessarily innocent picture. Now, before you paint my characterizations as a failure of AGF, I submit that El_C considered the complaint to be something sinister, a decided lack of good faith, to my reckoning. AGF is earned, and these factors all contribute to something less than an assumption of good faith from El_C and Dmcdevit where it concerns DreamGuy.
Since El-C wants something recent, I offered to allow him the first opportunity to examine the instances where DreamGuy (or whatever anon he is using at that future time) has acted uncivilly, and until then, do as he asks - give DG another chance.
Maybe I have this all wrong, Spartaz. Maybe I've been reading the definitions of Civility all wrong, and been applying them incorrectly to DG. You are an admin. tell me what I am doing wrong, and I'll try to do better. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I do see your point, Spartaz,and I thank you for taking the time to frame it for me. What really bugs me is that I have a lot of respect for El_C, and I find it both frustrating and disappointing to watch my respect for him plummet like a stone. Maybe its unfair, but I expect admins to essentially fulfill the role of the wiser folk on the project, when the reality is that while many of them may have the editing chops to use the extra tools, they don't have a lot of the wisdom that's supposed to come with it. I am not saying i am better, but I expect that when I have a question for an admin, he/she is going to answer it, or find someone who can.
So, most of my frustration is with El_C in two similar situations acting poorly and obstinate and unwilling to listen to (what I feel is pretty sound) reason. I am not going to bother him again with the subject. I am going to have to stay away from him and hope my respect for him rises over time. He just doesn't have it now. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 21:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

3RR Question

OK, I've learned a lesson here and I plan to take it to heart. I do have some questions though, the rest of the links clearly show TTN working around the revert rule. This is a frustrating issue that involves many articles and many users. Because he knows how to beat the system, he is getting away with this. Eusebeus is there to back him up and save him. How can this issue be resolved? This is going to remain a thorn in editors side and nothing seems to be occurring. I've been warned by by you for editing, and I will not challenge it and will except your admonishment. However, I was editing, ran into edit conflicts, rv'ed then continued editing. I was not trying to do an edit war, but just improve an article. TTN was not! What about all the other examples I gave. I'm sorry to vent at you, but I'm here to help as are other editors, and yet we are faulted for trying to point out a thorn? This is infuriating. What would you do or suggest? Thanks! --Maniwar (talk) 00:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Take it to AFD if you disagree with the redirect and keep there overturns the redirect. Alernatively you can seek a third opinon or open an article RFC. Finally, you could provide some sources and then TTN's reasons for redirecting are moot and he will no longer dispute the article. Spartaz Humbug! 00:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

CBFan

I agree. Thanks for dealing with it! - Philippe | Talk 01:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for your support
Thank you SO MUCH for your support in my unanimous RFA. Take this cookie as a small token of my appreciation.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thanks for approving me for AWB. I do, indeed, promise to be careful. =) -- Avocado (talk) 20:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks also from me for approving me to use AWB. I will also be quite careful in my use of it.  DDStretch  (talk) 21:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

W00t

Hi, I feel like this soft redirect that you created should also have something like W00t can also refer to the internet store woot. Woot is a top 1500 website with a high level of notability (see page) and I feel this is a likely search term. --CastAStone//₵₳$↑₳₴₮ʘ№€ 01:48, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

You're treatment of D.M.N.

"How in god's name did you come with this as a no-consensus!?" What? You're crying? You need thicker skin if you want to become an admin! Now get ready for the DRV firing squad!
(This is how you come across).

I found the following message you posted to D.M.N. condescending:

How in god's name did you come with this as a no-consensus? The deleted arguments were based on policy and the keep arguments were mostly based on proof by assertion or ILIKEIT. Since you can't actually reverse the decision and delete, I'm going to suggest that we take this to DRV. Agree? Spartaz Humbug! 09:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

And then you made the following excuse for treating him that way:

I'm sorry if you took my comments as uncivil but if you want to be an admin you will need to develop a very thick skin.

It seems like you follow the doctrine that "it is okay to mistreat administrative editors to give them thicker skin so that they will become better admins".

This isn't boot camp.

Do you believe you are setting a good example for those preparing to become admins?

The Transhumanist

AWB

Yes. D.M.N. (talk) 13:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Spartaz I was wandering if you could give me a link that shows me how to delete a page or tell me how to because I saw you know how since I looked at the deletion log.Swirlex (talk) 20:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The Kazenga LuaLua DRV

Hi! Look like you were closing off with Template:ab (the AfD closer) rather than Template:drb (the DRV closer). :-) Fixed now! --Stormie (talk) 22:47, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Gah! Thanks Stormie. Spartaz Humbug! 22:49, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Bold text

Talk page

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

Oh, that made a mess of your talk page. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 20:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Actually I can't work out how to fix the table to the right. Any ideas? Spartaz Humbug! 20:33, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

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

AfD closures

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

Screwed up there didn't I!. I just closed a bunch. I'll go back and check whether I screwed up any more. Thanks. Spartaz Humbug! 13:21, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
great, I've already fixed a couple more from the 8th. Gnangarra 13:28, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
fixing ab is good exercise for the mind, adding AT to the end you must be tired :-) Gnangarra 13:30, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 January 8 they where in this log, sorry for confussion. Gnangarra 13:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

AfD closure

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

Vpmi Article: Deleted

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

I'm sorry but I think you are cherry-picking from my closing statement. The discussion addressed the sourcing and concerns were raised about whether the cited sources were specifically about the subject. What concerned me was that for notable software it is unheard of it not having it on-line sources and this supported the concerns about the sourcing raised. Let me ask you a couple of things. Why are you so determined in having this article and do you have any relationship to this outside wikipedia? Spartaz Humbug! 20:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm just not sure how to convince you of the cited sources being about the subject without sending you the actual articles. Would it help if the article had direct links to the actual articles rather than just a reference to them as you might find in a bibliography? That is easily done. I must admit that I have been in the business of project and portfolio management for 8 years and I can say with 100% confidence that this is far from an unheard of product. With companies like ETRADE, Johnson & Johnson, US Army, Express Scripts, PepsiAmericas and others using VPMi, I think it is well beyond unheard of. I won't lie to you. I work for VCSonline and we deliver the solution. That is why I went to such lengths to simply make the article fact based with no flowery language or suggestions of features that might make the article actually more valuable in an encyclopedia. I will also guarantee you that every article listed on [List of project management software] was written by vendors. If you are going to apply these rules to my article, I think it is only fair that you do the same to the other articles on that site. Doing so will result in no articles left on that site. That I can guarantee you. I've looked at the references the other vendors have provided and they are far inferior to what I've given. I added VPMi beceause it IS a notable software solution and lends credibility to your [List of project management software]. The software solutions that you have on that list (with the exception of MS Project, Primavera and @Task), are far from notable. When I found that list I felt it deserved to be a more credible source. That is why I added VPMi. If you think that is unreasonable I guess we must disagree and I am left with no recourse, despite the fact that I have far more experience and insight to this list than the admins making the decisions. This is really all I can offer you. I hope you will reconsider. If it was the sources not being linked to the actual online articles, I would be more than happy to add those links. I do hope you will reconsider or at a minimum take a hard look at the other tools on that list and at least be fair about this.--Tilleyg (talk) 15:27, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Would you be willing to restore the article if the links were to external sources where the references can be verified and validated as genuine? I think that would address the concerns related to notability. Please let me know if this can be done to make the article acceptable for inclusion on Wikipedia.--Tilleyg (talk) 06:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Feel free to show me what you mean and I'll review it. Spartaz Humbug! 20:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
    • What I had in mind was to make the references external links to the articles on the web. Like the following:
  • Martin J. Garvey (January 28, 2003). "Real-Time Access to IT Projects". Information Week. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  • “PM Network Case Study: VPMi.”, PM Network July, 2007.
  • Buttrick, Robert (2005). The Project Workout Third Edition. Great Britain.: Prentice Hall - Financial Times. ISBN 0-273-68181-8.
  • Schwalbe, Kathy (2007). Information Technology Project Management Fifth Edition. Course Technology, Inc. ISBN 1-423-90145-2.

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

  • Just to note that I haven't forgotten about this but need some time to look through the references properly. Spartaz Humbug! 18:23, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Much appreciated. I imagine this all gets to be fairly overwhelming. Looking forward to your decision.--Tilleyg (talk) 19:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


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

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

I'm sure the reminders are getting annoying, but I'm really hoping for your evaluation of these external links so that a final decision can be made regarding the Vpmi article. Looking at the other articles on the page where Vpmi was once listed List of project management software, it seems these are at the standard (or in many cases well above the standard) of the others currently included and being added. If you do decide to restore the article, I am hopeful something can be done to prevent me from going through this 2 month ordeal again and to ensure that it is restored where it was once listed. I thank you in advance for your help in that regard. Kind Regards. --Tilleyg (talk) 06:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Hi. I think the only fair thing to do would be to undelete the article and relist it at AFD for these additional sources to have a wider audience. I really appreciate your patience with my tardy consideration of the extra sources... If the AFD agrees to keep, we can find the exorcised links in my contributions history and restore them. Its actually much easier then it seems. I'll post a link to the discussion once its up. Spartaz Humbug! 11:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

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

Buddhist Monkey

Hi Spartaz. Regarding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buddhist Monkey (second nomination), I'm curious how you came to the conclusion that "the result of the debate was Delete" when there was in fact, no discussion. I was hoping to actually get some consensus on this in the interests of deleting other similar pages, but without a discussion, there can be no consensus. What do you think? Powers T 23:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Consensus is measured against policy and your arguments reflected policy. If no-one can be bothered to disagree in 5 days then by default your argument is accepted. I agree it doesn't make much of a precedent but Afd results are non-binding as consensus can change. I'd just list the worse and see what happens and if they are deleted list the rest. Cheers Spartaz Humbug! 07:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I came here for the matter below but just noticed this too. I read the article when it was proposed in AFD and thought it was quite good. I am not familiar with the topic though and got diverted before I could research sources and such. Deleting the article after no discussion seems improper. Note WP:DGFA - If in doubt, don't delete. Please consider relisting instead. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
    • There is no quorum for deletion debates. Why should I not go ahead with a well argued rational for deletion that is grounded in policy simply because noone chose to oppose it or said me too? Spartaz Humbug! 04:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  • No policy was cited by the nominator or yourself. Notability is just a guideline and, as I understand it, many articles were written before it was introduced. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
That's exactly why so many older articles are now being deleted - because they no longer meet the inclusion criteria for the 'pedia. Spartaz Humbug! 12:27, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of British Traditional Counties

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

Thank you but I followed the discussion closely. The final consensus should to be measured against policy not head count so in closing the discussion I identified the element that made the list outwith policy. Spartaz Humbug! 04:47, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Nobody in the discussion used the term indiscriminate,as you did, even allowing for spelling, and the nomination didn't come close to it, being based primarily upon WP:PLACE, which you didn't mention. Since the point of the list seems to have been to document the ABC's conception that there are well-understood, long-standing counties, the exact content of the list would be trivial to source, if this was not done already. One of the opposers even clarified the matter as being about the idea that traditional counties were timeless. It seems that it is his somewhat rival idea of historic that is more vague, as you would need a timeframe as context. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:01, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  • per the following quotes in the discussion:
    • by whose 'tradition' - the assumption that there is a uniform 'British' tradition in this area
    • Since the article doesn't explain what's a traditional county is, this isn't much of a stand-alone.
    • Traditional is one of those ambiguous phrases that doesn't really have any useful meaning in the context of an encyclopedia
    • What are the time-scales or limits for this
    • If nothing else, the difference between England, Wales and Scotland in this area is so great as to make the critera for inclusion in such a list unascertainable
  • All of the above reference the lack of definition for inclusion in the list and this is what I'm referring to in my close. Lists must have a proper basis for inclusion to avoid becoming indescriminate information {per WP:NOT#INFO and this issue is threaded all through the discussion. If not explicitly stated is is clearly implicitly stated. Spartaz Humbug! 12:26, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

The Natural (film)

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

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

I didn't know

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Top Gear races

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

  •  Done Thanks for reminding me. Spartaz Humbug! 14:03, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the quick response. Guest9999 (talk) 14:38, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

MAIN RACES

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

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

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

User:CBFan

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

Block evasion is confirmed by checkuser. I have reset his block. - Philippe | Talk 20:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. Spartaz Humbug! 20:37, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Alesana

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

re Guy - copied from my talkpage

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

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


Deletion Review for W00t

An editor has asked for a deletion review of W00t. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. CastAStone//₵₳$↑₳₴₮ʘ№€ 15:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Attempted RfC removed

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

RFC's need to be certified by two users within 48 hours of creation to avoid deletion. Spartaz Humbug! 20:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Right. In the item you deleted, I described my basis for considering two users to have attempted to mediate (up to that point). When I created the RfC (at the recommendation of the response of the wikiquette item, which is now archived) the button didn't work (maybe just lag?) so I attempted to reproduce the item manually. After the article was ignored for some time (several days) I added it to the "candidate" section manually. (That was proably more than 48 hours ago, now). So, if nobody comments, then it is deleted? An RfC can merely be ignored and deleted without comment? The response at the wikiquette was that the matter was too complex for wikiquette. The archive (with the wikiquette item) is very laggy for me, I may have dificulty finding the material. Pete St.John (talk) 21:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
You are correct, the RFC must be certified by two users within 48 hours of being listed at RFC/UC and this did not happen. This is the way the system works. RFCs are very blunt instruments. Singleton issues are better dealth with at WP:ANI. Frankly, if this issue happened a couple of weeks ago and there has been no repeat then I would suggest that you just let it go. Spartaz Humbug! 21:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
This is from a long-running battle of considerable complexity; the claim is that the accused uses subtle and diffuse methods to debate unethically and harangue editors out of the venue. He's won, because I did leave the venue (not being able to stomach the harangue) and put my attention on the request for intervention. The result was that it was too complicated: exactly the accused's method of success. And naturally nobody wants to investigate it thoroughly, because of exactly that complexity. But now, I have to reproduce the case as an AN/I (escalating from the Wikiquette, which got no response as too complicated, and now from the RfC, basically ditto) and the material is buried in the deleted RfC and the archived Wikiquette, where it will be a PITA for me to reconstruct. So what's my take-away from this? First, there is a great way to hound people away from editting: by being sufficiently oblique, over a long enough period of time, that no simple set of diffs convinces an admin to take an action, and nobody will do anything if it's not simple. Second, next time I submit an RfC I must find two people to certify them, since I wouldn't be doing an RfC in the first place if it were simple. Pete St.John (talk) 21:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I have no problem userfying this in your area so you don't have to redo everything. I'll do it now and leave you a note where to find it. Spartaz Humbug! 21:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks very much. I have a /scratchpad root for that kind of thing, but I'll cope. It's a big help just to have the text, unfortunately it cites the wikiquette, which I'll have to dig up from the archive, but the text is a big help. Pete St.John (talk) 22:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Its done already. The location is shown in your usertalk. The arcane RFC rules are designed to protect users from frivolous RFCs. On reflection ANI is a poor venue for a complicated case - have you considered mediation or seeking a third opinion or Editor Assistance? Spartaz Humbug! 22:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:MFD#Userspace original research on organized crime

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

  • The list was made with some list command and I couldn't work out how to fix the data once the pages had been deleted. The list can be found in my logs and any admin can find the deleted pages by sorting out the users' deleted contribs in user space. I did try to subst the list but it didn't work. I did consider leaving it for some more tech savy Admin but given the seriousness of the blp violation I felt they had to go immediately. Spartaz Humbug! 09:10, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
    I agree with what you did, thanks for explaining, thanks for closing too, the complex ones seem to sit around at MFD and you are right this one needed to go immediately the issues were too serious to worry about the details of closing the MFD discussion subpage. I looked through WP:BLPN and found the section where this group of pages was originally brought up and I left a note there that they were deleted and linking to the discussion. Some of the linked pages are identified there. Thanks.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 17:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Franco-Mongol alliance, from ANI

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

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

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

a thank you note

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

Care to comment?

Hello,

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

Thanks

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

Just to let you know, I have replied to your comment on my talk page, looking at it again it may seem a little abrupt - but sums up how I feel.
Thanks anyway :-)
Pahari Sahib (talk) 19:39, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Just thought I'd point out that the blocking admin has apologised to me, it turned out to be a mistake :-), incidentally just to be clear in response to your statement (for the sake of posterity) "I should also comment that your request for unblocking was a question not a request for unblocking" - that exactly what it was meant to be, I used the unblock thing to get an answer from someone, of course I wanted to be unblocked, but more than anything wanted an explanation.
Regards
Pahari Sahib 20:00, 28 January 2008 (GMT)

Dodie Cross

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

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

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

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

Consensus on waiting

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

  • I don't think its written down but if you regularly look at RFAs you will see this constantly being referred to. The point is that evaluators like to see how editors have developed between RFAs and what they have learned from the previous process. 3/4 weeks isn't anywhere near enough to judge this. You can see from the opposes that a decent gap is generally expected. My advice would be to withdraw now and explain you weren't aware. That should clear the way for this not be an issue the next time you apply and it should be much easier for you that time round. In the meantime I'm going to withdraw my oppose since you clearly didn't cotton on to the need for a decent break but please seriously consider advice to withdraw now. The quicker you do it now the less resistance there will be next time. Spartaz Humbug! 22:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
I see your point, but think it should be taken with a grain of salt. If the problems lie with the admin nomination process, the only way to show a correction is to apply again. There is no way I could expand on question one or avoid canvassing in my next admin nomination without actually resubmitting. If someone's objections are with regards to edit history or recent malicious acts, then this objection makes much more sense. I appreciate your candor and do not mind an oppose or a comment (that is your choice/privilege on Wikipedia). I'm going to go ahead and let this nomination run its course and see if there are any additional "gotchas". Who knows. People may change their minds and I'll get the nomination or I might get feedback on something else I can change/do more/do less/etc. — BQZip01 — talk 22:25, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Fair enough. Your call. My final advice is to spend some time at RFA after this one fails and get a good feel for what the regulars are looking for. It will help you avoid unnecessary complications next time. Good luck. Spartaz Humbug! 22:54, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the advice. I'll put it in my "clue bag". — BQZip01 — talk 00:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Eri Kasamoto article

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

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

RfA thanks

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

I support a 24 hour block for User:Wfgh66

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

Please block this guy, he is trolling over editors talk pages trolling Igor Berger (talk) 08:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
He admited to sockpuppetry so that alone should be 30 day ban. Igor Berger (talk) 08:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
He wants to delete his own account Do not do it, but block him for 24 hours and later we can ban him for 30 days. Need to keep an eye on this pupy! Igor Berger (talk) 08:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I do not think our guy learned anything. Just after coming out of a block he comes back and soap about fringe and cabal. Looks like someone unblocked him because it is less than 24 hours. Also the page was protected, so who took the protection down? Igor Berger (talk) 19:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  • He is still blocked. You can edit your own talk page during a block unless an admin protects the thing. Nothing to worry about here. Spartaz Humbug! 20:09, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
    This guy is very destructive. Good luck with him, Igor Berger (talk) 20:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Looks like we found the master puppeteer Igor Berger (talk) 20:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
    The reason for his madness, his website is black listed priory - of - sion (dot) com Igor Berger (talk) 20:41, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

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

Yeah, okay, I'm crazy

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

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

For your consideration

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

  • Thanks for the heads up. Only problem from his point of view is that I didn't take any admin action in regard to this and confined myself to discussion and proposals on ANI. Spartaz Humbug! 10:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Spartaz sorry to bother you, I know you asked me not to bug you. I called myself "Troll..:)" with a smile meaning sarcasm. Maybe Steve did not learn how to read sarcams. Steve I am not a Troll. Maybe VirtualSteve you are the only one Thinks I am a Troll. You need to read Wikipedia:What is a troll? stop calling good editors Trolls, Baiting them and Flaming them. Igor Berger (talk) 11:04, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

AFD

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

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

G2bambina & Rufus MC

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

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

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

  • Hi, I don't like butting in. But I am one of the editors involved in discussion at Debate on the Canadian Monarchy. G2Bambino did place a tag asking for outside help in balancing the article. In the light of that, don't you think two weeks is a bit much? And Rufus outing him? I would've thought that was a much bigger deal. But he only got a slap on the wrist. G2 hasn't ask me to say this.--Gazzster (talk) 23:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Rufus is a new user and (if you check the guidelines for blocking) allowances need to be made for inexperienced editors per WP:BITE. You will see on their talk page that I left them an unequivocal warning about conduct. G2bambino is an extremely experienced editor and has a block log as long as my arm. He makes good contributions but seems wedded to edit warring his way round the project. This simply has to stop. Short blocks haven't persuaded him that he needs to change his ways so the only option left is to start escalating the blocks to bring home the fact that the project will not tolerate his editing style. I have already indicated conditions I would be prepared to consider reducing the block. The ball is in his court. Spartaz Humbug! 06:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, for unblocking G2. GoodDay (talk) 17:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Kemo the Blaxican

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

If you Google "Kemo the Blaxican interview" you'll find a number of sites that discuss his career. I'm not even talking his own quotes, but the intros that go into detail about what he had accomplished. There were a other references on the wiki, but I can't access them now that they're deleted. 68.155.97.188 (talk) 09:40, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Please read WP:RS. The sources need to be published, peer reviewed and independant. This means that fan sites are almost certainly not going to meet the requirement. The google results have already been reviewed by the participants of the AFD discussion. If you have sites you think meet the criteria you are welcome to post them here but I'm not trawling google for you. If you want to have the article restored the least you can do it do the scut work yourself. Spartaz Humbug! 10:02, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Your decision regarding SCSI Page [1]

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

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

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

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

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

  • Admins are not allowed to protect a page on a preferred version. If protection is required the last version must be protected unless there are copyvio or BLP issue that must be expunged. See the protection WP:PROTECT for details. Spartaz Humbug! 19:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
OK, so the last edit survives regardless of the content. Not IMO a particularly good way to get good content, but sobeit.

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

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

Slavic toponyms for Greek places

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

  • I have absolutely no way of checking these references or sources and suspect I wouldn't understand them even if I did but that's OK. If you check back on my close you will see that I specifically stated that recreation can happen as soon as some sources are found. Since you have done this, please feel free to undelete the article and add the refs appropriately. I see this as fully in accordance with my close so there is no need to void the AFD. Feel free to leave an explanatory note there if you wish. Thank you for saving this article. Spartaz Humbug! 20:48, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Thanks....And fooey to those who claim I'm a deletionist. :-); just an immediatist. Is that worse? LOL Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Superb! Fantastic work recreating this one. Just one niggle for me, what version of Cyrillic are you using for slavonic transliteration? I noticed a couple where the cyrillic version doesn't match modern Cyrillic (Modern Bulgarian uses the same alphabet as modern Russian) and the transliteration was different for the same sound on a couple of these. I just wondered, before I fixed them, whether I was simply being guilty of trying to apply a modern alphabet to something older. The example was a soft-sign and two versions of ZH. Spartaz Humbug! 19:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the complement. Actually, the orthography is from the (Slavic) Macedonian alphabet, not the Bulgarian one, and I checked them again just now and they seem to be correct. Certain letters: Ј, Љ, Њ, Ѓ, and Ќ are used in Macedonian but not Bulgarian. See: Macedonian alphabet. I hope to post more prefectures, but entering in the Greek and Cyrillic is time consuming, but kind of fun. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  • In that case I'll just go back to my previous comment ;). Superb - great work with this one. Spartaz Humbug! 20:05, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

RFC

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

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

Thanks

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

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

DRev

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

It seemed pointless keeping it open when there was a longstanding consensus about what conditions we would consider this again. I had intended to close it earlier but having seen your comment I thought we might see some further useful debate. GRBerry's contribution kind of closed that down for me and the potential dramafest when we have quite a full house of drama filled things on the go suggested that we weren't going to benefit from keeping it open. If it helps, I think I am much more careful about closing debates than I was when I first got the bit and, you might be surprised to know, I'm always extremely careful to make sure that your contributions to AFDs are given full weight - not least because you are really good at finding decent references for stuff that might otherwise have got deleted. Spartaz Humbug! 07:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
you'll notice i didn't say you were wrong to close it. (Nor do I think I'm being ignored in closings, nor do I have problems with your closings otherwise). In terms of practicalities that article is going to have to be written in draft before a DR will be acceptable. I have been wondering however what the arguments will be when a substantial article or 2 directly about it does in fact get written in a good source, since it's clear some will never accept it, no matter what appears.DGG (talk) 15:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I think that will be a very interesting debate and I'm certainly not brave enough to close that one. I would guess that if an article were created it would almost certainly end up being permanently protected in some form or other. I didn't think you were challenging my close but we have rubbed edges over my DRV/AFD closes in the past and I thought it would be a good opportunity to acknowledge that some of the things you tried to drum into me when I was first promoted are starting to stick. Last time you posted on my talk page you accused me of substituting my own opinion for an AFD discussion in some close or other (I think it was one of the cyrodill AFDs) so I was kind of under the impression that you generally disapproved of my closes. Spartaz Humbug! 15:52, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Emergency: Please check Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR History

G2bambino is actively changing the content of the notice board! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Soulscanner (talk • contribs) 19:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I was initially perplexed (flummoxed is more the word) by the strong accusations in your explanation for the block. However, I now realize what has happened.

  • To see my initial complaints (there were four), you will now need to go to the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR history entry (see link). You will notice that it probably reads a little differently than the one you read.
  • The eventual decision can be found later in the page history (see link).
  • You are not going crazy (I thought I was when I checked the current page). You will notice on the history page that G2bambino considerably altered the page. (see history page)

I'm still not sure if I believe my eyes. Let me know if I have this wrong, but it seems that G2bambino has altered history.

I don't blame you for your strong reaction. You assumed good faith on G2bambino's part. No hard feelings. It's hard to imagine or anticipate that kind of audacity (although it doesn't really surprise me). Be it said that a good deal of editors on the Canada page who had given up because of G2bambino and Quizimodo will be relieved at these self destructive developments.

I'm going to let an administrator handle this. I will indeed limit my dealings with G2 from here on in. I wish G2 well, and hoped he/she had fun while it lasted. --soulscanner (talk) 19:16, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I have blocked G2bambino for three days for this series of edits which is completely and utterly out of order. Stifle (talk) 22:05, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Block on Soulscanner

When you sort this out, could you please leave a brief message on my talk page explaining the situation. Being blocked does not add to ones credibility. Thanks. --soulscanner (talk) 21:43, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Apologies

See Stifle page for full details. I'm sorry for the huge confusion. Well, at least I always assumed good faith on your part. Cheers. --soulscanner (talk) 01:50, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Errors requiring correction on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR

If you have time, could you look into this? It still hasn't been corrected. I'm not making any recriminations here, but changing the reporter and reportee changes the meaning of the decision to say the least. G2bambino probably thought that the original decision got the names mixed up, and changed the names around because I accidentally deleted his report. I'm not going to touch this lest more accusations fly. But not having this here makes it look like I am harassing him.


There remain some errors on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR. The following decision was altered, reversing the original reporter (me) and the reportee (G2Bambino):

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR&oldid=189737333#User:G2bambino_and_reported_by_User:Soulscanner_.28Result:_See_above.29

Could someone please reverse the reporter and reportee back to the original. It now appears as:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR#User:Soulscanner_reported_by_User:G2bambino_.28Result:See_above.29

I'm not going to get into altering this myself for obvious reasons. I know this is a mess. Thanks. --soulscanner (talk) 00:07, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

What I was thinking.

I could ask you the same. The only reason you overturned the close I can think of is because of process (come on, because I wasn't an admin? I've been around long enough to know how Wikipedia works. A endorse closure doesn't need the delete button.). Let's not get invested in this stupid debate over the article - there's a threefold consensus to not have it on Wikipedia already, and seeing as the nominator was blocked because of the DRV, that should go a long ways to proving the nomination was disruption. Will (talk) 12:35, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Closing any discussion requires you not to have voted in the discussion. DRVs are generally allowed to run their full period and there was no obvious reason to curtail this except to stifle discussion. We all know the deletion will be endorsed but not following process in this case is likely to provoke further disruption afterwards. I'd rather avoid that and if the price allowing a milding disruptive DRV to run for 5 days then that's a good result. Spartaz Humbug! 13:09, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
On the subject of the nominator, see my latest edit to the user talk page; I suspect I'll need some help here or else I'll be left with no alternative. Daniel (talk) 12:42, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
In fact, a five day block until the end of the DRV may also work. I think the odds are close to a dollar and one that nothing's going to change post-block expiry at the DRV. Daniel (talk) 12:46, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Let me just have a look. Spartaz Humbug! 13:09, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Ug. I actually took his page off my watchlist because all the bold was huring my eyes. I left a contribution there in support of your comment and have made community expectation of behaviour explict. Thank you for your comments. I agree that any further abuse should be met by a long block. I fear that the inevitable outcome is block, sock and more drama. That's way I wanted to let the process run its course in the hope that it might be less of a provokation. Spartaz Humbug! 13:17, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

"Please don't do that"

The comments should be removed if anything. By boxing them I preserve the comments while pulling them from interfering from people leaving legitimate comments. To attack a user through "I agree with this block" is unnecessary. The same was said on the ANI. The clear appearance is that people feel some need to drive it in like venomous salt into the wound of a hyper-aggressive block. Why is that? So much vilification and bad blood going around here... and Tlato was a good part of its ecalation... but at this point, let's all go back to being nice and pleasant, eh? Such comments are not necessary and, as I mentioned, probably should be removed per WikiPolicy. Let's leave them boxed at least. Is there some other reason not to remove such irrelevant (to that page), nastiness-derived, repeated comments? VigilancePrime (talk) 06:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
No they are not your commehts to alter. The page owner or the editor who posted them can do something but third parties shouldn't. There is nothinjg particularly OTT there anyway. Spartaz Humbug! 06:24, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
The mere posting of them is nastiness-based. I am/was seeking to help a fellow user who obviously cannot protect himself. I feel that is perfectly justified. NOTE: I have not reverted it back, as I feel discussion is the proper route. You should at least appreciate those two points. VigilancePrime (talk) 06:27, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm grateful you are not edit warring but I'm not changing my position on this. You have no right to alter or censor the comments of good faith users in good standing. There is nothing more to discuss. Spartaz Humbug! 06:29, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't expect you to change your opinion. I know the users are Good Faith and their standing is Good, but I'm not convinced those particular comments are intended entirely in Good Faith. I'll leave it only because it's not worth fighting on it. T- can do what he wants with it and then you all can fight (more) with him. As for me, I'm making the attempts at peacemaking, as is readily apparent. VigilancePrime (talk) 06:33, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Name

Total unrelated curiosity, from where or from what does your username derive, IIMA (If I May Ask)? It makes me think Spaatz, but is different. VigilancePrime (talk) 06:33, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
It comes from being a Spartak Moscow fan but having difficulties registering the name Spartak Spartaz Humbug! 06:45, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Request

Could I take a look at Beverly Bremers? Thanks! Chubbles (talk) 06:49, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Re Pyong

Hey - sorry, that's not me who wants to add sources; that would be Tomoya-kun ([2]). I just left the notification about the previous deletion when I found a blue-linked, delete-closed AFD this morning. Sorry for any confusion! --Kateshortforbob 18:01, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Leah Patterson-Baker

Am I correct in reading that the deletion of this article was done after the injunction was issued by about six hours? Corvus cornixtalk 22:03, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

  • I have absolutely no idea. Seriously? Hmm, that's bad... Bear with me. Spartaz Humbug! 22:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
    • It looks like it was created 3 hours before the injunction came into effect and the deleted 6 hours afterwards. Its entirely possible the deleting admim was unaware of the injunction. As the article had been recreated against an AFD and what was there was unsourced I don't think any harm was done but I'll drop the deleting admin a line and ask them to review this one. Spartaz Humbug! 22:20, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Oh, yeah, I'm quite sure that the deleting admin didn't know about the injunction. Corvus cornixtalk 22:31, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
        • I'm not very good at this in real life and even worse on-line. Was that sarcasm? I dropped the admin a note and asked them to reverse the deletion. Spartaz Humbug! 22:33, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
          • No, no, I was agreeing with you. My first attempt at wording was even more awkward. Sorry.  :) Corvus cornixtalk 22:34, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

G2 and 1RR

I guess you've overlooked it, but G2bambino soon broke his "1RR" pledge, edit-warring on the "Canada" article:

This was in the same business over which G2 made a 3rr report against Soulscanner, which you'll doubtless recognize from having commented upon the report.

Even before that, at "Commander-in-Chief of the Canadian Forces", G2 had made a second revert mere minutes beyond 24 hours from his last revert:

-- Lonewolf BC (talk) 04:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Addendum, with regard to G2's remarks, below:
For the "Canada" edits, the images involved in first edit (16:35) were the same except for having different file-names and image-sizes, and having been uploaded to WP from different sources. Compare the former image, which has been deleted, "250px-Queen_of_canada_wob.jpg" (linked to, here, from it's off-WP source, as shown by the log-page of its uploader), with the latter image, placed by G2's edit, "Queen of canada wob.jpg", (still on WP and viewable in the page-history of "Canada"). They are identical images, except that "250px..." is a reduction of the other. When put on the page as "thumbs", I'm they displayed exactly the same thing, I'm sure. Further, the edits both restored the caption, making them both reverts on that basis alone. G2's claim that the first edit was not a revert is thus false. (Given that you deleted "250px..", quite likely you already knew that the images were effectively identical, but there it is, in case you had not noticed.)
The "Commander-in-Chief of the Canadian Forces" reverts are not presented as a technical breach of "1RR", but because I think they broke the spirit of the agreement while keeping its letter. They are both unequivocally reverts, though, and the further alterations that G2 mentions did not change that fact.
-- Lonewolf BC (talk) 08:11, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for stating the obvious. However, allow me to add the point that the first edit at Canada was still a legitimate edit that addressed the concerns of the user who removed the previous image; namely, it was not a revert. I believe that's all that needs to be said, besides, perhaps, that you should stop bothering Spartaz with this non-issue. --G2bambino (talk) 18:00, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Nice try, Loner, but, as usual, you've failed to create a credible argument. This edit put in a different picture; one that had fair use rationale, thereby addressing the concerns behind Soulscanner's removal of the previous image. This edit was the one revert.
As for Commander-in-Chief of the Canadian Forces: firstly, I was within my promised guidelines, and secondly, though less importantly, the revert was merely a simpler way for me to make further alterations.
Sorry you had to be bothered with this, Spartaz. --G2bambino (talk) 02:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
My concerns were not met, I was not informed of any change to the fair use page, I did not indulge in any edit war, nor did I remove a non-fair use image. I was going to let the 3RR slide because this has gone on long enough; there are multiple issues here; please take notice of the rfc report. --soulscanner (talk) 12:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Your concerns were initially met: you complained about an image about to be deleted because of copyright issues, and I replaced it with a different one that was soundly accepted for fair use use. Only after that did you point out, in the edit summary of your direct revert, that there wasn't a fair use rationale given explicitly for Canada. I then reinserted the picture and added the Canada article to the fair use rationale on the image page, to, again, address your concerns. You then reverted again, and again. Meanwhile, twice I made clear on Talk:Canada that I was not going to push for the inclusion of the image, I only questioned your editing tactics, which were also demonstrated in the simultaneous reverting of tags at that time. I saw four reverts within 24 hours, and reported them simply as such. Only by filing that report did I learn that removal of non-free images is not subject to 3RR rules.
What's more disturbing here is that I explicitly stated I wasn't passionate about the image's inclusion, and I haven't bothered again with the issue for a number of days now, yet you've decided to go ahead with a bizzare and vindictive RfC against me, again. Spartaz here blocked you once for harassing me, and I'm starting to regret that I didn't initially agree with his actions.
Spartaz, I again apologise for your having this go on on your talk page. What are your opinions on how to cease this? --G2bambino (talk) 14:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Having made a right dick of myself last time I interfered in a Canada based disputes I formally recused myself from taking any action against either yourself or Soulscanner. There is clearly a serious dispute that needs expert resolution but I don't think I have the credibility to be the one to do this. Spartaz Humbug! 11:41, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Frankly, Spartaz, I don't think there's any dispute but the one Soulscanner is sustaining long after any potential real dispute has ended. I seriously wish, for your sake and mine, that he, and Lonewolf, would both be done with it and leave us alone. --G2bambino (talk) 18:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey!

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

No. We don't have any reason to keep the old page. I can't se ewhy you need it. I can only presume that you did something and are proud of the warnings. Tough. Please stop this disruptive crusade. Spartaz Humbug! 22:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't see any reason to not have it either. You are just making things hard for me - AND YOURSELF - by not doing it! Besides, do you realise that the administator who deleted the old page is the most hated Wikipedia administrator? 144.131.176.126 (talk) 06:37, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Is that a threat? Spartaz Humbug! 08:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
No it's not. I just want you to realise that. 124.176.218.144 (talk) 22:03, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


RFC discussion of User:G2bambino

A request for comments has been filed concerning the conduct of G2bambino (talk · contribs). You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/G2bambino. -- soulscanner (talk) 12:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Obviously, he's not willing to let this go. --soulscanner (talk) 12:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to delete the RFC if its not properly certified by the end of the 48 hour period. Spartaz Humbug! 11:38, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  1. ^ [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR#User:ILike2BeAnonymous_reported_by_User:Tom94022_.28Result:_no_vio.2Fno_action_.29 ILike2BeAnnyomous
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Spartaz/Archive7&oldid=1143321725"