Ron Ritzman (talk | contribs) |
Ron Ritzman (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 184: | Line 184: | ||
::Surprisingly, I agree with this close. When I take an article created in good faith to AFD, I'm basically asking "is it notable"? I want community input. If the answer is "yes" and it's closed "keep" then I don't consider myself as having "lost". In this case I really don't think there was a clear answer. Remove all the canvassed !votes (and counter !votes) and drama and there is enough reasonable doubt that "no consensus" is a valid judgment. |
::Surprisingly, I agree with this close. When I take an article created in good faith to AFD, I'm basically asking "is it notable"? I want community input. If the answer is "yes" and it's closed "keep" then I don't consider myself as having "lost". In this case I really don't think there was a clear answer. Remove all the canvassed !votes (and counter !votes) and drama and there is enough reasonable doubt that "no consensus" is a valid judgment. |
||
::On the issue of the offsite canvasing and me being raked over the coals in that webforum, I expect that there might be some of that when it comes to AFDs on webforums, bloggers and popular youtubers but whodthunk that a skateboard shop in San Diego would have "groupies"? :) |
::On the issue of the offsite canvasing and me being raked over the coals in that webforum, I expect that there might be some of that when it comes to AFDs on webforums, bloggers and popular youtubers but whodthunk that a skateboard shop in San Diego would have "groupies"? :) --[[User:Ron Ritzman|Ron Ritzman]] ([[User talk:Ron Ritzman|talk]]) 23:52, 11 May 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 23:52, 11 May 2010
Old talk is at /Archive.
Please note that I will usually reply to messages on this page, unless you ask me to respond elsewhere.
Please use the link provided in the blue box above which says "Please leave a new message."
This way, you will be able to give your comment a subject/headline.
If an admin action made by me is more than a year old, you may reverse or modify it without consulting me first. However, I would appreciate being notified after the fact.
April 2010 GAN backlog elimination drive
WikiProject Good Articles will be running a GAN backlog elimination drive for the entire month of April. The goal of this drive is to bring the number of outstanding Good Article nominations down to below 200. This will help editors in restoring confidence to the GAN process as well as actively improving, polishing, and rewarding good content. If you are interested in participating in the drive, please place your name here. Awards will be given out to those who review certain numbers of GANs as well as to those who review the most. Hope we can see you in April. | ![]() |
–MuZemike delivered by MuZebot 17:48, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Rollback request
Hi:
I saw you o the list of administrators willing to consider rollback requests. I'd like to have [[Wikipedia:Rollback_feature|rollback}} enabled for my account. I have been on Wikipedia for around four years and have almost 7,000 edits. Most of my work on Wikipedia is in the Human Sexuality area and reverting vandalism, which occurs frequently in that area. I already to a large number of reverts, and rollback would make it a little bit easier. Thanks, Atom (talk) 18:05, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
False positive of filter
Wrongly says article doesn't include it's own title in opening. Didn't bother to check if this is UTF-8, lack of whitespace by reference or simply my only looking once at it... 82.132.248.82 (talk) 17:45, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mândruloc
The Wikipedia Signpost: 29 March 2010
- Sister projects: A handful of happenings
- WikiProject report: The WikiProject Bulletin: news roundup and WikiProject Chicago feature
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Please help with educating a user
After you closed WP:Articles for deletion/N.I.N.A as "no consensus", I redirected it after ensuring that all the well-sourced information was in the target. The identification as the name of the album had to go, because all commenting editors agreed that that wasn't well-sourced. The tracklist was unsourced, and the existence of the "mixtape" was also unsourced (when I tracked it down, it's a bootleg, available only on blogs). I feel that I was well within the range of acceptable editing. However, I was immediately reverted and accused of "circumventing an admin", and then threatened with an ANI report. I'm confident that I could survive any ANI report should I reinstall the redirect, but it would be better if Silver seren understood that I hadn't done anything disruptive or particularly questionable in the first place. I don't think hearing that from me helps much.—Kww(talk) 21:19, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
- I agree, "circumventing an admin" does not apply since a "no consensus" close just means to restore the status quo and thus is not binding. However, your redirect is out-of-process; try to discuss it on the talk page before making such changes. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:23, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Creative Control (music company)
I note that you closed the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Creative Control (music company) discussion after no one had commented on my request for deletion after two relistings (albeit on the same day, 31 March) in accordance with WP:NPASR, indicating no prejudice in starting a new Afd. Since it appears to be a non-controversial deletion, I have prodded the article instead of relisting. I hope that that is not inappropriate. --Bejnar (talk) 05:20, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
- I have been told that a prod after an AfD is inappropriate, so I have relisted Creative Control (music company) for a second AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Creative Control (music company) (2nd nomination). Assuming good faith, I feel that you may not have noticed that in closing the first AfD under the rubric no debate may be relisted more than twice, that the two relistings were within an hour and twenty minutes of each other, (Apparently there was a cache problem somewhere.) and that you closed the AfD on the same day as the two relistings, with the result that the original Afd ran a few minutes less than one week, from 21:36, 24 March 2010, to 21:19, 31 March 2010. I would appreciate it if you could address at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Creative Control (music company) (2nd nomination) the underlying merits, or lack thereof, of the article itself. I don't believe that this request violates the spirit of Wikipedia:Canvassing, but if it does, please let me know. Thanks. --Bejnar (talk) 04:26, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 April 2010
- News and notes: New board member, rights elections, April 1st activities, videos
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Baseball and news roundup
- Features and admins: This week in approvals
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
Sean Needham
Hi there,
I am writing to ask for some advice on getting my article 'Sean Needham' approved.
I don't understand some of the terminology being used. Would you be so kind as to help me.
Regards,
imnotafan —Preceding unsigned comment added by Imnotafan (talk • contribs) 16:00, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 April 2010
- Sanger allegations: Larry Sanger accuses Wikimedia of hosting illegal images
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Motorcycling
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
(Untitled)
I have come across an article which has been vandalized. Arms and the Man was vandalized on the 14th and 15th of April 2010 in a series of three edits. The last of the three edits was undone, and then some of the edits before it were manually undone, but some of the objectionable content remains. Could you roll it back to the 22:15, 7 April 2010 version?
Thanks, Isaiah Bierbrauer —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ipaqah (talk • contribs) 22:08, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 April 2010
- News and notes: Berlin WikiConference, Brooklyn Museum & Google.org collaborations, review backlog removed, 1 billion edits
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Environment
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Your speedy deletion of that page is contested here. Pcap ping 19:19, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
- Given that you're not around, I've made a formal request: ==Deletion review for Astrotite==
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Astrotite. 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. Pcap ping 05:54, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 April 2010
- From the team: Introducing Signpost Sidebars
- Museums conference: Wikimedians meet with museum leaders
- News and notes: Wikimedia announcements, Wikipedia advertising, and more!
- In the news: Making sausage, Jimmy Wales on TV, and more!
- Sister projects: Milestones, Openings, and Wikinews contest
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Gastropods
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Wikipedia Signpost: 3 May 2010
- Book review: Review of The World and Wikipedia
- News and notes: iPhone app update, Vector rollout for May 13, brief news
- In the news: Government promotes Tamil Wikipedia, and more
- WikiProject report: WikiProject U.S. Roads
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
wtf is with the Drew Fickett crap?
I think that should be changed... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.183.134.242 (talk) 20:57, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but I'm afraid you'll have to be more specific. What page are you talking about, and what do you need me to do? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:20, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Laura Massey
Please reinstate Laura Massey. The deletion discussion, in which you did not participate, had only two people voting for "Delete" and two voting "Keep." No consensus was reached. White 720 (talk) 01:36, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- The 14 days were up, and excepting highly unusual circumstances an AfD discussion is not relisted twice. Please note that AfD is not a vote, and in this discussion the arguments for deletion were simply stronger than the arguments for retention. And the fact that I did not participate is irrelevant; in fact, by very nature as the closer of the debate I must not have participated in the discussion. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:03, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Jessica Jarrell
Thnx for moving the page to my sandbox! Candyo32 (talk) 03:22, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Signpost: 10 May 2010
- From the editor: Reviewers and reporters wanted
- Commons deletions: Porn madness
- Wikipedia books launched: Wikipedia books launched worldwide
- News and notes: Public Policy and Books for All
- In the news: Commons pornography purge, and more
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Birds
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Hellen Dausen Article
Thank you for your recent actions closing the AFD discussion on Hellen Dausen. Unfortunately, today User:Marcia Beatriz Einsfeld recreated the article. I have notified the user that this article was already AfDed for deletion, however I cannot delete the article myself. I also noticed the user wrote the new article in Portugese, so she may not have been able to read the information that the article had been deleted when she created it, or my notification to her.Mmyers1976 (talk) 18:41, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
- Update: I have nominated the article for Speedy Deletion.Mmyers1976 (talk) 20:23, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Done King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:00, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks so much!Mmyers1976 (talk) 21:41, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Um, are you sure about that? There isn't a single Keep vote based in policy there even if you include the SPAs, and there's plenty of people pointing out failures of various parts of notability and significant coverage in reliable sources. Pushing it to the incubator, as the nom suggests, might be best. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:49, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep !votes with substantial arguments include: PÆonU (his problematic behavior and existence of his unsound arguments shouldn't make his good arguments receive any less consideration), Dream Focus, Cptnono. In particular, the "delete" voters either make a blanket statement about the unsuitability of the sources without explaining why they are unacceptable, or say that the local coverage does not show notability (and ignore the international articles). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:00, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
- Surprisingly, I agree with this close. When I take an article created in good faith to AFD, I'm basically asking "is it notable"? I want community input. If the answer is "yes" and it's closed "keep" then I don't consider myself as having "lost". In this case I really don't think there was a clear answer. Remove all the canvassed !votes (and counter !votes) and drama and there is enough reasonable doubt that "no consensus" is a valid judgment.
- On the issue of the offsite canvasing and me being raked over the coals in that webforum, I expect that there might be some of that when it comes to AFDs on webforums, bloggers and popular youtubers but whodthunk that a skateboard shop in San Diego would have "groupies"? :) --Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:52, 11 May 2010 (UTC)