Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mark Arsten (talk | contribs) at 13:47, 30 October 2013 (→Notification of Arbitration request: comment). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archives

Archive 1 * Archive 2 * Archive 3 * Archive 4 * Archive 5 * Archive 6 * Archive 7 * Archive 8 * Archive 9 * Archive 10 * Archive 11 * Archive 12 * Archive 13 * Archive 14 * Archive 15 * Archive 16 * Archive 17 * Archive 18 * Archive 19 * Archive 20 * Archive 21 * Archive 22 * Archive 23 * Archive 24 * Archive 25 * Archive 26 * Archive 27

Spartaz (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

I'm a long term user (first edit 2006) and have been an admin on or off since 2007. When we first started there was so much idealism and we really had no strong policies about inclusion except a desire to have some level of sourcing. As time moved on we became more structured and around the time I became an admin in 2007 we were grappling with the concept of collapsing non notable articles into lists which I was at the forefront of as a regular afd closer and constant presence at DRV. I had a lot of patience once and for that reason was regular DRV closer for a long time after GR Berry left the project. Sadly, my patience was degraded over time and getting involved in the PORNBIO wars pretty much washed out a lot of the good faith that policy and courtesy quite rightly requires us to show. This was again a major change in our approach to content and one of the first SNGs that was deprecated in favour of a more rigid approach to proper sourcing. Since then our content in this area has become much better and we are seeing similar struggles now in the sports arena where SNGs are slowly giving way to GNG level standards.

I have always taken a very legalistic approach to closing discussions that I recognise does not fit well to the current community standard, where low participation level allowing more brigading of votes or allowing more non-policy based arguments. For this reason I'm not really closing discussions but will still happily review old closes. Otherwise I mostly review and nominate unsuitable content as a BLP is a serious matter and needs to be properly sourced.

i am willing to userfy deleted articles for improvement as long as there is a reasonable likelihood that they can be saved. If you are challenging a deletion, do you have three good sources?

Useful Links:

• Deletion Review
• Articles for Deletion
• Unblocks

Please don't leave talkback templates as I always watchlist pages when I edit and I'm perfectly capable of looking for a reply myself.

The Dating Guy

I'm quite certain there are older revisions of the talk page for this article - could you restore these as part of the userification?

• I'll have a look. Spartaz 21:05, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Can you check I got them all back? Spartaz 21:11, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
    • It's kind of hard for me to check that given that I can't see deleted revisions. All I can say is that it seems you now deleted the latest revisions (the ones that were there before I made this request). Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 21:14, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
      • I can't see any deleted revisions at either your user space or the original location so they must all be restored. I dunno what date the stuff on the page was at but it must be somewhere in the history now. Spartaz 21:35, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
        • You're probably right - I now think what was there before was simply an old revision that had been restored by the other administrator, not a new one. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 21:42, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Also, I would like to clarify that I wasn't attacking anyone - merely stating my opinion (perhaps a bit harshly). Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 20:57, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

• You labelled everyone you disagreed with in a way designed to devalue their opinions. This is utterly unacceptable and won't be tolerated the next time if I'm around DRV. You can disagree with someone without calling them names and you are lucky I was on a wikibreak as I would have closed the DRV out of hand. Please don't do it again. Users who challenge XFD outcomes need a neutral supportive place to work through the deletion and if we haven't lost them after the XFD we will have after an agreesive DRV. Thanks. Spartaz 21:05, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
  • While there isn't much point in arguing about this now, I would like to note that I did not in fact call anyone names at all - the so-called attack that was referred to on that page was something else entirely. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 21:09, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
    • Some of your labels - "the delete crowd" * "deletionist bias" * "You're clearly a deletionist" * " you can see that anyone who doesn't want this article restored doesn't want to follow Misplaced Pages policy" - All of these are polemic statements that add no value to the discussion and just make you look strident and agressive. You can surely express yourself as clearly without needing to be so dismissive of those you disagree with?? Spartaz 21:18, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
      • Given the number of essays on the subject, I thought calling people "deletionists" wasn't considered an attack at all (and the latter statement obviously isn't an attack). If there's some policy against this that I'm not aware of, I'd appreciate you providing me with a link to it. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 21:22, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
        • You are right about that and in retrospect I shouldn't have used the term attack on the close. I have therefore removed the comment with my apologies. That said, it was labelling and that can be just as bad. I firmly believe that labelling people you disagree with isn't acceptable as it cheapens and coarsens the discussion and raises the temperature unnecesserily - and frankly adds no value. Spartaz 21:30, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
          • I appreciate the removal of that statement. I do see your point despite not fully agreeing with it, and as I stated below, I will try to be less aggressive in similar future discussions. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 21:42, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
  • I'll definitely try to be less aggressive next time, though. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 21:10, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
    • Pleased to hear it. You will get a better discussion too with users more willing to chip in. Spartaz 21:18, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

I've just found out that the userified page is still protected. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 21:00, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

• I'll fix that. I didn't know protection moved with a page. Spartaz

Some bubble tea for you!

I'm sure someone's not gonna be happy with your DRV close of the Obermeyer case, so here ya go. Thanks for the tough decisions. ~Charmlet 22:39, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

• While I think delete was a reasonable close and so the redirect should not have been overturned (I don't think non-public is so well defined that it clearly doesn't apply to her), I think your closing statement was clear and reasonable. Hard close, nice job. Hobit (talk) 03:49, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
• I want to add my voice to those applauding the close in this case. Jclemens (talk) 03:52, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the kind comments. Usually it only takes me a few minutes to close a DRV but this one took well over an hour while I reread all the policy and the AFD and considered the DRV. I'm glad to see the time wasn't wasted. Spartaz 09:49, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
• Yeah, I was generally the same direction as Hobit on this one but I respect the effort you put into the close and your reading of consensus there. As above - hard close, nice job. Stalwart111 14:33, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

D-Cubed - revised article

Hi Spartaz,

Thanks for your advice concerning drafting a revised D-Cubed article (the original was recently deleted). If you could place the deleted article somewhere in my user area (I'm a new user so please forgive me if my terminology is not correct), that would be a useful starting point.

Thanks, MingleLane MingleLane (talk) 12:31, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

•  Done its at User:MingleLane/D-Cubed. Spartaz 06:35, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you Spartaz. MingleLane (talk) 15:23, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Deletion review for Misplaced Pages:Files for deletion/2013 April 24

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Misplaced Pages:Files for deletion/2013 April 24. 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. Also affected: Misplaced Pages:Files for deletion/2013 June 8. Stefan2 (talk) 16:03, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

advertising spam on Misplaced Pages

Hey,

I like wikipedia but I hate spam and blatant advertising.

Aren't pages that are not backed by 3 or more real journalistic news articles or legitimate references (as required by wikipedia rules) forbidden?

If so, why are there pages with so many links to the company's own website and only one single reference to another site, which is not even really a news website, but rather a sponsored industry trade journal....

For example, see http://en.wikipedia.org/Kalara_International_Properties

Signed 50.7.174.130 (talk) 08:08, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Another ad / spam

http://en.wikipedia.org/2Spot_Communications

http://en.wikipedia.org/Solar_Air

http://en.wikipedia.org/Property_Report

http://en.wikipedia.org/Number_One_Plaza

,ost of these entries 'references' are either links to their own sites or dead links and the few that work refer to blogs or trade shows. There really should be an autobot which flag entries which have dead links or self-referential links = those are easy to spot. In the mean time, thanks for your help in keeping wikipedia clean and relevant!

141.0.169.142 (talk) 14:07, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Books and Bytes: The Misplaced Pages Library Newsletter