Jump to content

User talk:Fritzpoll/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

rollback rights (Thanks!)

If I gave you a batch of wiki-cookies, would someone interpret that as a quid pro quo? :)
Much appreciated, and yes I will use it with care. Cheers, Proofreader77 (talk) 09:49, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

RE:Your comment at the INB

FYI, I have added comment a to clarify the India project position at the Village pump. Regards, Ganeshk (talk) 03:16, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

More deletions

Please and thank-you :) Sceptre (talk) 12:46, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

By the way, as I use the Modern skin, the monobook scripts aren't being used. Sceptre (talk) 12:48, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

French commune bot

Fritz. User:MJCdetroit has been running his DetroiterBot to fix some existing French commune boxes. I was wondering if you could speak to him about what we talked about before with the copying infoboxes from French wikipedia and help with the get something set up to run it. Perhaps a collaboration between two bot experts? Could you speak to him? Thanks The Bald One White cat 14:39, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I thought you might have responded on that one. Never mind. Anyway using Seinfeld as a guideline would probably be a good idea for Frasier. Also can you restore the list of missing villages in Dhaka Division of Bangladesh as there is a Bangladeshi editor actively expanding many of the village articles. Could you restore the Dhaka Division list from the missing encyclopedia articles into User:Dr. Blofeld/Bangladesh? The Bald One White cat 20:12, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Been heading home for Christmas, so missed the message. What page was it that you want (linky?)? Seinfeld, eh.... Fritzpoll (talk) 00:43, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Remove_A7

Can you please review this and tell us why you felt Boathouse (band) had no indication of notability 02:03, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

JME

Hi im new to Wikipedia and have got the hang of using the system now. I was trying to edit the JME/Jamie Adenuga page and realised that you have protectedthe page. Please could you take the protection off as i wish to edit this page. I understand that the page was protected due to unreliable sources and bias etc and would just like to assure you i am going to use reliable sources.

thanks, knowledge.is.power.91 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Knowledge.is.power.91 (talk • contribs) 15:48, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid you'll have to tell me exactly which page you mean, as I've clearly lost track of this bit of protection. Best wishes Fritzpoll (talk) 15:54, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Hello Fritzpoll! I just wanted to wish you and your family a merry Christmas! May this Christmas be full of great cheer and holiday spirit. Have a great day and a wonderful New Year, from The Bald One White cat 11:22, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Footnotes in guidelines

Footnotes yes... citations no. A Footnote explains or expands upon the policy/guideline statement, perhaps pointing the reader to another policy statement or to something Jimbo Wells has said. A citation points to an outside source, and we don't need or want that in our policy pages. Blueboar (talk) 01:45, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

D'OH... I took a second look, and what you put in was indeed a footnote. My appologies. Blueboar (talk) 01:47, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Heh, no problem - I'll dig out the diffs for the on-wiki stuff tomorrow to clean that bit up as it does look a bit external-ly Fritzpoll (talk) 01:50, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I have to ask why we need the footnote in the first place. The footnote seems to focus on the fact that there are many media stories that repeat errors and vandalism from Wikipedia. And while that is true, it isn't what the passage in question is talking about. That passage warns against citing sources that themselves cite Wikipedia because it would be a circular self-reference... we end up citing the very article we are writing.
The foot note really does not discuss what the passage is talking about. Blueboar (talk) 03:47, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps if I make it link to the on-wiki stuff? Fritzpoll (talk) 11:50, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

BAG nom

Hi Fritz, I have nominated you for BAG membership at Wikipedia:Bot_Approvals_Group/nominations/Fritzpoll. Please go and review the nomination and accept if you would like to run for BAG. Then transclude it to Wikipedia_talk:BAG#Requests_for_BAG_membership and we'll be off! MBisanz talk 18:17, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Hiya

Hey, Fritzpoll/Archive 4. Just stopping by to wish you a Happy Birthday from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee!
Have a great day!-- MBisanz talk 06:55, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

It is your birthday? Well have a great day amigo!! The Bald One White cat 11:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you both very much. Now, due to circumstances beyond my control, I'll be gone until February. See you all then Fritzpoll (talk) 12:37, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Replied. The Bald One White cat 13:12, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: Flagged Revs

Thanks Fritzpoll, I can get a little muddled! So the poll isn't about implementing a full scale trial, it's not even about implementing a restricted trial. The poll is actually about making the software available? Why are we even having a poll about this!? Couldn't somebody have just been bold? That way we would have skipped this and could have got straight to the important polls/talks regarding actually testing the flagged revs? --Cameron* 15:16, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Heh - unfortunately the developers need a specific poll to be able to point at and go "ah consensus". Happy-melon's approach seems a little convoluted, but it means that we can separate the need for a trial from the specifics of how to go about performing one, which is good for a variety of reasons. I like melon's analogy that you need the funding to build a lab before you can plan your experiments. Don't worry about being muddled, I was confused early in the discussion myself! Fritzpoll (talk) 16:25, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi! At this moment, it's 371/270/3. I'm not sure of the outcome, but I don't want anymore admins to leave us if this poll goes through. What do you think is so good about the flagged revs? It will mean that the NPP patrol backlog, which is already huge will get even larger and it ruins the concept of the fact that this is supposed to be the Encyclopedia that "anyone can edit". Further so, by creating it changes to the Featured Article, which is not protected for exactly that reason will also have to be reviewed, which means that it just ruins the entire concept. I hope you agree, The Helpful One 19:11, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, flagged pages don't go into NPP/RC as far as I'm aware, so it will reduce those queues by shifting the information elsewhere. At the moment, we are the "encyclopedia that anyone can edit except protected and semi-protected pages" - an example of how FlaggedRevs would be beneficial is that we could replace all forms of protection with FlaggedRevs, which would allow anyone to contribute to any page. Neither I nor anyone else that I'm aware of is considering a deployment on the scale of de.wiki - the truth is, noone (supporters included) has any idea how this will work, even in a limited way on en.wiki.
And that's where this poll comes in - it isn't to actually implement FlaggedRevs in the sense of "now we can start flagging pages". It's just the consensus required to get the devs to actually install the software. In that sense, it's basically useless, as we'll have no consensus means of rolling it out - subsequent trials of the system can see where and how we might apply it, and I will personally oppose trials that have no "drop dead date", but that comes after the agreement that this poll would represent: to have any trials to begin with. If we as a community dogmatically decide that we will oppose any and all change despite a complete lack of evidence of functionality, I will almost certainly down tools and wander off...for a good while. I hope that's clear, sorry for the length, and if you want to ask me any follow-ups, I'd be very pleased to answer. Fritzpoll (talk) 09:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Have a look at the list of proposed trials - none of them are proposing activation across article space Fritzpoll (talk) 09:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Ah well, then you've changed my mind, as I'm still against the idea, I've changed my vote to neutral! :) The Helpful One 17:13, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
That'll do me! Hopefully we haven't screwed up those carefully placed headers.... :-S Fritzpoll (talk) 17:15, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

making rounds

And unfortunately, not the drink kind. Hope your well, happy new year! Keeper | 76 20:34, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Answer

To answer your question - by me, with this edit. Raul654 (talk) 09:40, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Wow, I'm just surprised! I was expecting to apply for it near the date of the assassination. Any particular reason for the choice? Fritzpoll (talk) 09:42, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
No reason in particular. I was skimming the list, looking for articles to schedule, and it happened to catch my eye. Raul654 (talk) 09:53, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, great - I'll be around for the inevitable flood of vandalism next Friday! :) Fritzpoll (talk) 09:54, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Woot. Fingers crossed it won't be as dramatic as Jan 14. Giggy (talk) 08:57, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
(/me wonders what is dramatic about the 14th and goes to look...) Fritzpoll (talk) 19:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
WP:ANI#Possible Featured Article issue. Giggy (talk) 00:09, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Blocked account

Hi, Thank you for unblocking my account so that I could change my username. I have now done this. I hope that writing on your talk page doesn't violate the terms of my unblocking, I just wanted to ask what it is necessary for me to do in order for my account to be fully reinstated. Thank you.

Munch922 (talk) 12:25, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


Thanks! Can I ask advice concerning my user page...I completely accept that it should be deleted, as I previously stated it is a draft of the Government Office for Science entry. According to the deletion policy I'm not allowed to blank out the page while it is being considered for deletion so...what I can I do about it? Thank you.

Munch922 (talk) 12:47, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I have taken the above to be a request for the page to be deleted, and have deleted it for you according to WP:CSD#U1. If you need anything else, let me know! :) Best wishes Fritzpoll (talk) 12:56, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! Munch922 (talk) 14:24, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Newbies

Didn't you get the email? The Bald One White cat 11:40, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Was it the one in relation to you being "welcomed to Wikipedia", and the editor not seeing the sarcasm in your response. Saw it this morning. Most amusing! :) Fritzpoll (talk) 11:44, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Roll eyes. Yes indeed. LOL I was only playing though, anyway according to Ryan Gerbil anybody with over 3,500 edits is scum on wikipedia and quite incapable as somebody with under this number of edits. The larger the number of edits the less you are considered useful and to be a good representative of wikipedia I guess. Many people forget what this project is about, I find the adminship process often quite paradoxical. I see that Eccoolage had an oppose based on the fact he was too active within the mainspace. Ludicrous.

Congratulations though on being "BAGGED" up. The Bald One White cat 12:38, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Trust this man....he knows what he's doing.


Congrats on the mainpage article. Blood, sweat, tears, and now some nameless clear beverage poured by one of Wikipedia's finest. (no, that's not a picture of me) Congrats, FP - Keeper | 76 03:47, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you muchly Keeper!  :-D Just logged on - amazing how much vandalism there has been, and it's not even 10am! Fritzpoll (talk) 09:33, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm absolutely shocked to think that someone would want to have the alt. theories in there. Shocked! (</sarc>). Mainpage looks fantastico. I'm pretty sure that's your fault and yours alone. All the evidence points to the fact that you were single-handedly responsible for that article being on the main page thus creating the beautification of said page. There are no fringe theories on that at least :-) Keeper | 76 15:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
I think we have to blame Raul for that. The passing of this from the mainpage, will, however, signify the beginning of my Wikipedia downtime. Please, please: don't all cry at once! Thanks for all the help and encouragement on this article. I suspect I'll have a stab at a second FA sometime soon, when I get time! Fritzpoll (talk) 15:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Trying to pass the buck onto another editor. Tsk, tsk. You have your own alt. theory as to who caused the mainpage appearance, oh the irony. Be well, good luck with your studies. I'm in and out as well, likely permanently at this point. Keeper | 76 14:59, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Lead section format on RFK assassination

Hello Fritzpoll- I saw your revert of my rewordingof the lead to the RFK assassination article. I wondered when I made the edit if there was guidance that called for an initial verbatim occurrence of the article title, but guessed on the side of not necessarily, and decided to make the first sentences a little smoother. In your edit summary, you mention "correct formatting," which prompted me to go poking around a bit for guidance. All I found was Wikipedia:Lead_section#Format_of_the_first_sentence, which allows for my take on that kind of article title. My principal motivation for making the edit in the first place was to get rid of the early second instance of Robert F. Kennedy, which jumped out at me as awkward. Do you think the article needs a verbatim repeat of the full title, and that the English read better before I changed it? -Eric talk 20:17, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I just moved it back to the way that got the lead section through the FA process. I wouldn't say that the title is descriptive, so I would expect a bolding occurrence in the first sentence. The revert wasn't direct - I think it got caught up in a lot of vandalism reverts that day. The talk page for the assassination is quite well watched, for a variety of reasons, and I won't be around really for the next few weeks - feel free to take it up there. It isn't my article, but I think it is a change that might need some discussion Fritzpoll (talk) 12:02, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi- I will also be too busy for a while to give it much time. Do you think I should just copy this over to the article's talk page? -Eric talk 15:02, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Flagged Revisions Straw

My apologies, I thought that the trial page was the proposed trial. Switched to support. --Patar knight - chat/contributions 13:36, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Glad to hear it - it has been a little difficult at times to figure out what is being proposed. I think that there are misconceptions on both sides of the support/oppose divide! Fritzpoll (talk) 13:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Kernow

You should have looked at User talk:Jehochman (re Unblocks) before suggesting that I jumped in too early. Deb (talk) 17:46, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I did - my comment was to suggest consultation before adjusting the block. You did it the other way around. Fritzpoll (talk) 17:48, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes, but his talk page says not to bother consulting him first unless he specifically asks you to. Which I don't think he did. Deb (talk) 17:55, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
I just feel that, given it revolved around a sockpuppetry case, it would have been wiser to consult first. Happy to agree to disagree :) Fritzpoll (talk) 18:03, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

are you allowed to delete people's comments to avoid responding to criticism?

this is in regards to your deleting of my comment on Hfarmer's talk page. is there someone else i can take this to? the drama created by this has to end somewhere, and covering it up only perpetuates it. it must be addressed, why prevent this? 69.196.191.177 (talk) 09:19, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Her talkpage - her right to remove. Since she removed it, you may assume she read it Fritzpoll (talk) 16:25, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Fritzpoll, you dealt only (and correctly) with the issue of removal. The other question should probably be addressed. IP editor, if Fritzpoll doesn't have time or otherwise care to respond, you can ask me more specifically on my Talk page. My Talk page is semi-protected, but you can find a link at the top to an unprotected page, User talk:Abd/IP. If you seriously want to address Wikipedia issues, you should probably register an account. It's actually more anonymous than IP editing, which reveals your IP to the whole world. (I don't always read that IP page quickly; my watchlist is huge and needs trimming, and I haven't got a Round Tuit.) I haven't looked at Hfarmer's Talk. --141.154.152.136 (talk) 19:03, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
I assume this is you, Abd? I think in this case, it would appear best to let sleeping dogs lie. There were misunderstandings caused by language, it all got out of control, and I see little or no need to reingnite the debate. If either of you has a different problem that you feel I am not addressing, and perhaps are unsure of, please e-mail me at [email protected]. The contents of any correspondence will be held in confidence where necessary. Fritzpoll (talk) 10:09, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes, the IP was me. I use different computers and it seems Wikipedia frequently logs me out, often in the middle of a session. I don't always notice it. Anyway, I wasn't suggesting that there was anything specific for you to do. I was giving the editor an option, someone else to ask the question, i.e., me. Fortunately, the IP talk page was given, so that you and he or she could figure out who was offering to help! In any case, it seems you have done, yourself, more than enough, good work. --Abd (talk) 14:25, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
I know, but I am willing to help all sides of this issue come to terms with the problem if they wish for my assistance :) Thanks for leaping in though; as you correctly stated, I am a little inactive at present! My time here seems presently to be spent dealing with FlaggedRevs. Fritzpoll (talk) 14:48, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, that's very important. I hope you are on the Right Side.(Trademark registered) --Abd (talk) 00:46, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Haha - who knows?! The Right Side is so relative, unfortunately - I am, however, accused indirectly of being opposed to everything Wikipedia stands for, so it is much like any other reasoned debate in this place! Fritzpoll (talk) 08:04, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

"Wikidrama is the root of all unhappiness on wikipedia". More trouble with Abd or has he now become a saint? Dr. Blofeld White cat 12:10, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I will go as far to say that Abd is often passionate, often misunderstood, sometimes naive, but always justified in his assessments of situations on-wiki. I think similar things could be said for all of us. I'm currently working on a compromise FlaggedRevs proposal Fritzpoll (talk) 12:13, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Talkpage watchers- help!!

See User:Fritzpoll/BLPFlaggedRevs - can one of your help me format the table to look nice? Fritzpoll (talk) 13:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Really? You think people haven't got anything better to do than base their wiki time revolved around your talk page? Dr. Blofeld White cat 15:59, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

...says the man replying to my message :) Fritzpoll (talk) 16:02, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Well uh actually I had popped in the see how you were doing earlier and checked to see if you had responded as I am doing again. I'd hardly call that "stalking" you. the way you've worded it makes it seme as if you are the first port of call and the first thing people think of when they log in, oh I must see the latest developments on Fritz's page!! "Stalking" is such a negative word to describe your friends on here. Perhaps people would rather you spoke to them and asked them on their talk pages once in a while? Dr. Blofeld White cat 16:23, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough - fixed. I will come chat when I am less busy - I shouldn't really be here, but I think FlaggedRevs is too important to miss the discussions. I'm popping in and out between working, although today has been somewhat of a rest day work-wise... Fritzpoll (talk) 16:25, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm kidding! Check your email. I;m not editing for a few days on here so perhaps I will be your stalker? Hope you are well! Dr. Blofeld White cat 16:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Lol - got me again Fritzpoll (talk) 16:33, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

In the words of Mr. Ray Davies. Yeah! You Really Got Me, Yeah, you really got me now. You got me so I dont know what Im doin, now. Oh yeah baby, you really got me now, You got me so I cant sleep at night. Shagadelic maaann! Dr. Blofeld White cat 16:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello Mr. Admin. Can you please move Faaa to the correct name of Faa'a. It pronounced Fah-hah not Faaaa baaa baaaa black sheep. Comprende? Dr. Blofeld White cat 12:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

 Done Fritzpoll (talk) 13:51, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Have a look at File:Idrijske Krnice.jpg. Now why does Teletubbies spring to mind? God that had to be the most irritating show ever. Remember the good ole days of programmes like Rainbow, Knightmare and T. Bag -now thats what I call classic British childrend TV. You are probably just old enough to remember these? Dr. Blofeld White cat 16:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

How do you *find* those??! Yes, I can remember all of those....fine, fine days. The joys of getting older, eh? Fritzpoll (talk) 07:59, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
The David Dickinson of Tibet?
See if you can spot the difference?

Yup lol. Hey how are you doing with the Frasier article? Did you hear about the death of Tony Hart? Dr. Blofeld White cat 13:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I did - I was very sad :( Not done a lot lately - work is finally winding down into something resembling normality, so will get to finishing it (and hopefully GA/FA-ing) it soon. How goes your article work? Fritzpoll (talk) 14:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Going well, very pleased with some of my recent editions which was information I had not thought possible on here just yet. With my recent work I came across an image of a rather tanned fella, I immediately though of David Dickinson for some reason. mm I wonder why. Scratch scratch chin? Now what would be good would be to organise an auction and see if I can get hold of some cheap as chips Tibetan tanning oils to bronze me wintry skin. What do you think? Actually the eyebrowns and drunken eyes reminds me rather of a Gallagher brother huh? Dr. Blofeld White cat 20:18, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: Previously deleted article: Papa Vs Pretty

Thanks mate. Should I send the new article to you when I've finished development, (that is, before its properly published) or someone else? --WCheckers (talk) 11:33, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd suggest dropping me a note on my talkpage when you're done, or on MBisanz's page, and we'll check the article out before you move it back to the article space. Technically though, any admin would do for the check. Best wishes Fritzpoll (talk) 13:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Flagged protection and BLPs

Hi Fritzpoll, would you mind to rename Flagged protection and BLPs to BLP protection, as Flagged protection is specific aimed at semi and full protected articles, and the settings for these articles in the BLP group get an override by BLP protection ? A clear split would be less confusing, cheers Mion (talk) 11:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure about this. I'm essentially proposing 3 protection levels. 2 of those are governed by the same rules/technical config as Flagged protection, and then I'm proposing Flagged BLPs as a separate option. One of the key things in my proposal is that the two things can run simultaneously, and at the end we can pick out which bits work best. When we straw polled FP, the principle objections were a lack of coverage for BLPs - my proposal suggests running two trials at the same time.
Consequently, since my trial is not simply BLP protection, I would object to a rename. The current name is accurate. Fritzpoll (talk) 11:34, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GirlFriends (manga)

I disagree with your closing this as a keep. There was no disagreement in this AfD at all over whether it was correctly titled. It is. There is a side discussion on a different, similarly named manga series, but that has nothing really to do with the actual AfD itself, as that would not be the same article. The one actual Keep was for the second series, by an editor who was looking at that secondary discussion, not the actual AfD discussion. I'd like to request you reopen and relist instead. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:03, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

The discussion here was, I feel, more complex than a simple yes and no. The confusion over titling that I was referring to, and perhaps should have made clear, was later in the AfD when a merge/redirect to a more appropriate Japanese title was referred to - I noted the confusion that you are referring to and weighted it carefully. Regardless, I do not believe there was a consensus to delete, and I do not believe that relisting is appropriate per WP:RELIST. I am therefore unwilling to overturn my close, but point you towards WP:DRV. Sorry I couldn't be more helpful Fritzpoll (talk) 15:15, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Alright...since it was between delete and merge/redirect, I've done the latter. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:22, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
As I say, the latter is an editorial point, hence why I made no judgement on it. Best wishes, Fritzpoll (talk) 16:37, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
So there needs be no further discussion on it, she can just delete the article, posting a redirect there instead to a page which will not have any of the information preserved? That makes it the same as a delete. Dream Focus (talk) 23:28, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
There was no actual consensus to keep it, only to either delete or merge/redirect. As you already know, a merge of a book to its author means merging basic publication info: year and title, which was done. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:30, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Personally, I would recommend discussion of this - AfD is an inappropriate forum for redirect/merge discussions such as these, and I am certainly unqualified to proffer an opinion. I note that the actions taken are revertible per WP:BRD, and would recommend discussion. My close was 'not to redirect, however. Fritzpoll (talk) 23:59, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Redirect/Merge is a valid closing option for AfDs, so I'm not sure why you feel that isn't a closing you can make. AfD is an appropriate forum for such a discussion of people feel it is a valid alternative to deletion. Many AfDs close as merge/redirect, including other similar manga series very recently. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:02, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
To be more precise, I wouldn't feel comfortable closing it that way in this case, since I feel that here it is an editorial matter, not an AfD option. If I'd thought "redirect/merge", I'd have closed it as such. That doesn't prevent it being redirected in the way you've done, I'm just being very clear that I have no strong opinion either way on the matter. Fritzpoll (talk) 00:04, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't really see it as an editorial matter, but alrighty. I'll let the redirect stand. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:12, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Heh - just me being picky, I suspect. The outcome is the same :) Fritzpoll (talk) 00:17, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
  • As noted before, there is no difference between a merge and a delete with her. The author's page already had the names of all the series listed, and their dates. None of the deleted information will be added there. When the Akane-chan_Overdrive AFD had some voting for merge, she then did a redirect and argued that no writer's page should have even the briefest of summaries. Others posted that a merge vote meant to merge it, and thus got at least a brief mention of the series on that author's page. She stated it wouldn't matter, since it'd be deleted again eventually anyway. So, as an editor, what is your opinion on this? Is there any difference whatsoever between a delete and a merge or redirect? And if there is no difference in this particular case, then shouldn't it have the same requirements to go before an AfD and get a consensus? Because what I'm seeing now is, if she wants an article deleted, then either people vote for it and it gets deleted, or she does it anyway and just puts a redirect in its place. Dream Focus (talk) 04:59, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
The relevant content was already merged[1] and this is per consensus (which also agreed with the original merge on Akane-chan, FYI. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:06, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Sigh. Can you give me your definition of a delete and a merge? As long as the series has its name and date listed, then it doesn't need anything else to qualify as a merge? Is that it? The page was deleted, not merged. Fritzpoll, would you please give me your interpretation of the wikipedia merge thing? And the consensus on the Akane-Chan Overdrive merge, was that having no infromation but the name and date was NOT a merge, and that some information had to be added. If consensus is to delete, then delete. But don't call it a merge, when you are just deleting. Dream Focus (talk) 05:27, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
A delete is a physical deletion, article is completely gone unless you're an admin. It becomes a redlink and, if deleted via AfD, can be speedily redeleted if someone comes back and tries to create it again. Merge means appropriate content (if any) is moved into the target article and the merged article redirected. If there is no appropriate content to merge (i.e. you don't stick plots in biographies), then its just redirected. Period. And the consensus at Akane-Chan Overdrive was that there should not be plot info in the biography article, thus the original merge was upheld. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:35, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
I simply closed as no consensus to delete - redirecting is not the same as deletion, as the content remains the same. I'm afraid I won't be able to say much more than this, but if my talkpage is a good place for a mediated discussion, feel free to continue :) Fritzpoll (talk) 12:50, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Well, I renominated it for deletion, but that was speedy closed, so now its at DRV. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:56, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for GirlFriends (manga)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of GirlFriends (manga). Since you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedy-deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:56, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Asal

Yes, it would be much appreciated. Thanx. =D Universal Hero (talk) 20:52, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

User talk:EverettMcGill

Hi. You'll need to delete this users account and get him renamed. Unless it is Everett McGill himself then it violates the living person thing doesn't it. Hey when was the last time you popped in to tlak to me on my talk page? Dr. Blofeld White cat 12:11, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Responded. I'm curious LOL Dr. Blofeld White cat 15:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Try Category:Wikipedians in Fiji? Dr. Blofeld White cat 17:57, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

upcoming questions

I need to read the GFDL again, I tried to read it when flatsca posted on my page. I am rather perplexed, as the closing admin was User_talk:MBisanz#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion.2FB.27dg (maybe for different reasons). I will have some questions, thank you. Ikip (talk) 14:25, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to ask me whatever, whenever you need to. You might also want to read [{WP:USERFY]], which is slightly easier to read! Fritzpoll (talk) 14:27, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Questionable

From what I have read, A Nobody reported TTN on ANI. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive498#Not_properly_attributing_contributions_in_merge_edit_summaries. User:Flatscan took over the discussion the next day, and the conversation was directed to Help_talk:Merging_and_moving_pages#Merge_edit_summaries.

On this help page the following was said:

Policy being quoted at Help_talk:Merging_and_moving_pages#Merge_edit_summaries:

Save the destination page, with an edit summary noting "merge content from [[article name]]" (This step is required in order to conform with §4(I) of the GFDL. Do not omit it nor omit the page name.)

Thump's comments (To summarize: rule widely ignored, but I should be warned to stop misusing talk space)

14:40, 9 December 2008 on Help_talk:Merging_and_moving_pages#Merge_edit_summaries:

I think it's fair to say that this is so widely-ignored that it's not going to be settled on a help page's talk. I'd certainly support making this notice more prominent.

11:10, 18 February 2009 on the recent ANI.

The correct immediate action would be to revert the copies and warn him to stop misusing talk space. If he wants to use his userspace to permanently store copies of every article that's deleted then so be it, while there are admins still prepared to humour him. He should not be using talkspace for the same purpose.

Other editors at: Help_talk:Merging_and_moving_pages#Merge_edit_summaries:

20:37, 10 December 2008

Enforcing this as we would other policies will be onerous and painful in practice.

20:51, 10 December 2008

It is frequently ignored because people have little or no knowledge of the GFDL, but that is not a good reason not to enforce it.

Reading the help page, this appears to be an attempt to create more WP:BURO and WP:CREEP. The new buearcracy seems to be in its infancy, since editors have "little or no knowledge of the GFDL" and this rule "is so widely-ignored".

From what I understand, as long as I add the merge tags, he will be satisfied, despite him already knowing that this rule is "so widely-ignored". Ikip (talk) 16:14, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Bit puzzled at what this above section is all about - seems quite bizarrely mashed up. It depends how you are using the material. If you copy text onto a new page for discussion, you should attribute its source. If you create a new page with text from the old one, you should move the entire page (or have an admin do it in the case of deleted pages) so that the history is preserved. That's all there is to it, fortunately. As for things said on other policy pages or by other editors, they do not override the GFDL, so attribution is always necessary. Fritzpoll (talk) 16:23, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Having looked further, I should point out that you are also quoting some aspects out of context. Your second quote for example, actually says: "It is frequently ignored because people have little or no knowledge of the GFDL, but that is not a good reason not to enforce it." - the GFDL is paramount, because we are only licensed to copy the text with attribution to the original authors. Fritzpoll (talk) 16:37, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
(ec) I guess we are all confused, thanks for the sympathetic ear. The editor quoted the previous ANI in the ANI against me, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive498#Not_properly_attributing_contributions_in_merge_edit_summaries, in this ANI, the discussion was moved to Help_talk:Merging_and_moving_pages#Merge_edit_summaries, where the editor discussed the above section. I quote editors there, including thump. I reworked the above.
It is always necessary, but it seems to be regularly ignored, is this correct?
Editors email copies of pages, without the history, is this allowed? Ikip (talk) 16:43, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
I added the portion of the sentence you mentioned. Sorry for excluding it. I am glad you are reading over the long conversation. Hopefully the above refactoring helps clarify things. Ikip (talk) 16:45, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. I will watch your page. Ikip (talk) 16:48, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
With the traditional note that I am not a trained legal professional, the GFDL on Wikipedia is a license granted by editors of articles that their contributions may be copied and distributed, provided their "authorship" is acknowledged at the time of distribution. Wikipedia does not own the copyright to the text, the editor does and copying the text without attribution is outside the terms of the GFDL license and so is copyright. My argument would be that in cases of distribution via e-mail and so forth, an annotated link to the article history would satisfy this. In the case of copying material or moving it around on Wikipedia, the attribution procedure is best served by the means I have described above.
Even though this rule may be widely ignored, it doesn't mean that it should be, and I would ask that you follow this in the future, even though I appreciate that you didn't realise it in advance. As to the behaviour of the user you have accused of harassment, I will look into this further, but probably won't reach any conclusions for the next few hours. Can you in the meantime summarise (ideally with diffs) the nature of your dispute? Best wishes Fritzpoll (talk) 16:55, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
I removed large portions of what I wrote. No further action is necessary. Thank you for your time and patience. I will follow this rule.Ikip (talk) 16:59, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I will cease looking into this, but if you feel that another user is unnecessarily pursuing you, please feel free to let me know. Fritzpoll (talk) 17:01, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Not a minor fix

This is not a minor fix[2]. It significantly changes the meaning of policy. I assume this was not intentional. Chillum 15:40, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

No, upon seeing it reverted, I suddenly realised the significance of the change, as I inadvertently made subject request a sole grounds for deletion! Whoops! Still not sure that the sentence is very clear though Fritzpoll (talk) 15:44, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

No worries, I sometimes don't realize things till I get reverted either. Chillum 15:45, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar of Peace

The Barnstar of Peace
The Barnstar of Peace is awarded to users who have helped to peacefully resolve conflicts on Wikipedia.

This barnstar is awarded to Fritzpoll, for his professional and fair handling of a delicate conflict. Fritzpoll, your negotiation skills and patience are an invaluable asset to the wikipedia project. Ikip (talk) 17:11, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

You are most welcome! :) Fritzpoll (talk) 17:35, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikihounding investigation

Hi. Thanks for intervening in the discussion at AN. While I understand the value of deescalation, I am not willing to let the allegations stand unchallenged. May I request that you complete your investigation into my editing behavior? Flatscan (talk) 04:56, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I would do so if I had anything to investigate. I suppose I could examine the accusation of harrassing behaviour, but I would ask that you reconsider. The issue seems to have been dropped, and without a complaint to assess, wouldn't it be better if you just got on with things? Fritzpoll (talk) 09:33, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
I thought about it, and I did reconsider after reviewing Ikip's retraction. There's no point in asking you to do busywork. Thanks again for helping with this. Flatscan (talk) 04:59, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Excellent. Feel free to return if you have any other problems Fritzpoll (talk) 09:08, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Bot idea

Hi Fritzpoll, Blofeld, AlbertHerring, and I have developed a new set of templates (e.g. {{Expand Spanish}}) that we hope can eventually be applied to many stub articles on en.wiki that could benefit from translation from another wiki. I was wondering if you could help us with a bot that could make the templates even better! Right now the templates can either be applied like {{Expand Spanish|Articlename}} or {{Expand Spanish}} (without an article name). If no article name is specified, it defaults to linking to the article with the same name on es.wiki. In general, this is good (biographies and geography articles generally have the same name, and these are the majority of the articles tagged), but it causes problems for articles like Education in Peru, which obviously doesn't have the same name in Spanish.

My idea is that a bot could go through the articles without an article name parameter, check for the relevant interwiki in the article, and then add that as the tag's articlename parameter. That way there will be no mistakes, and article tagging will be very easy because taggers don't even have to specify the article name. (If this bot were implemented and ran regularly, I would change the template default so there is no interwiki link in the tag until an articlename parameter has been specified by a human or a bot.) The only problems i can see is if there is no interwiki, or if there is a non-unique interwiki (some en.wiki articles have two es.wiki interwikis, for example). I suppose these could be outputted to a list for me and blofeld to review, or your bot could notify the taggers so they would fix it themselves.

I see you are very busy at the moment, but if you could help out eventually it would be great! Thanks, Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:43, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good - I can work on it this coming weekend if you would like? I'll be removing the bvusy template very soon! Fritzpoll (talk) 11:41, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

There is a proposal at BAG anyway. So far not so good. Dr. Blofeld White cat 12:48, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Where? Fritzpoll (talk) 13:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
No, actually, it's only at Wikipedia:BOTREQ#Broken_translation_requests (not BAG yet). This one should be uncontroversial, but the one below (re auto-tagging of articles) attracted opposition from Garion96. I suppose you could check that out if you're interested but I doubt that would be approved by BAG w/o a discussion at VP. Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:22, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Deleted article

Thanks for closing the deal on the Iberian-Guanche article. There is still a ton of links to the page that the creator of the article has sown across WP. What's the normal procedure? Will you delete them? Do you need a hand, or is it up to the editors to remove the links? Trigaranus (talk) 14:41, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Give me five minutes - I can delink mentions in article space, and I'll check for redirects. Fritzpoll (talk) 14:42, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Special:WhatLinksHere/Iberian-Guanche_inscriptions suggests it's a little embedded in text, and I'm loathe just to remove the links and leave the text in place given that there is debate over the usefulness of this term. Perhaps a manual removal would be appropriate by someone such as yourself? Fritzpoll (talk) 14:45, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


Redirect it to another page

Dear Fritzpoll,

As I see that you are very bussy with your PhD (GOOD LUCK!), I have taken the liberty to change title of page Iberian-Guanche inscriptions and done some documental additions. Please, read my reasons. Please note that this reference is not about Iberian-Guanche inscriptions, but about another altogether different ancient Lybic inscriptions. This misplaced reference is the main basis in which Trigaranus is pushing deletion. Please let me know your opinion.

--Iberomesornix (talk) 17:51, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I will review this shortly, but can I ask you in the meantime to notify Trigaranus, and perhaps hold a discussion with him? Feel free (in fact I insist!) to hold it on this page so that I can facilitate the discussion. Best wishes, Fritzpoll (talk) 20:35, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Fred shapiro deletion

I'm not entirely satisfied with the outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fred Shapiro. I understand the precedent/response to biographies of living persons though when there is no consensus. Is there a possibility this page could be re-created after his death? Cazort (talk) 01:46, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

If he does something to establish more than marginal notability, such that a biography would not violate WP:BLP1E or WP:BLP then I think the deletion arguments within the discussion would be reduced. What exactly do you find unsatisfactory about the result? Perhaps I can help in this regard... Fritzpoll (talk) 09:33, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Reinstalling of deleted page

Hello Fritzpoll. Could you have a look at this? The user who has been promoting this fringe theory has put it back up under a different header (the content is the same). Is there any way you could stop him from doing that? Thanks, Trigaranus (talk) 06:16, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

BTW: all his edits are about promoting this one single theory, installing links to it in otherwise serious articles. Trigaranus (talk) 06:19, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


Please restore Iberian-Canarian scripts page:not a single argument to remove it

Dear Fritzpoll, please undelete "Iberia-Canarian scripts"while you can see whether is suitable now ,with changes made.They have deleted the page after much work on it within hours Thank you Virginal6



Dear friend, I believed that Trigaranus was not maliciously after the Iberian scripts page in the Canary Islands.But he is. It is not true that provided information is based on a single source. Please,restore the page as you sugested yesterday to Iberomesornix and see that Trigaranus is wrong. Trigaranus lies with references and exagerates about "tons of links"


This is a clear conflict of interests and I would suggest to restore this page and send it to Wikipedia staff for further discussion or revision. Please,remove Trigaranus from this topic or do not take notice of his subjective advice in this particcular topic ,since he is the only one to go after the page without any arguments ,while others ,see History and discussion, would like to have this information in Wikipedia.--Virginal6 (talk) 09:08, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Upon closer examination, I see no basis for your accusation that Trigaranus has a conflict of interest in this matter. Continued unfounded accusations are disruptive and I request that you back up such claims with evidence such as diffs.
The article itself was deleted following a consensus formed at a deletion discussion. I have reviewed my close and find it satisfactory. If you are unsatisfied with this, you may appeal the deletion by following the process at WP:DRV. If you have any further questions, please feel free to ask. Best wishes, Fritzpoll (talk) 09:24, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


Iberian-Canarian scripts restored

Dear Fritzpoll,

The page was speedy-deleted stating that it was identical to Iberian-Guanche inscriptions. If you take a deep look at it, you'll see it is not. While you study it, I have restored it for the following reasons. Thank you. --Iberomesornix (talk) 10:09, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

The content was substantially similar - please use more appropriate channels such as WP:DRV Fritzpoll (talk) 10:44, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
I've blocked Iberomesornix for repeatedly recreating the article. kwami (talk) 10:20, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know Fritzpoll (talk) 10:44, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

No arguments

The reference used for deleting page was clearly shown in the discussion on the Iberian-Canarian script page,with a direct link.It showed that all of this is a big mistake. As you say,perhaps there is no conflict of interests,but Trigaranus is unreasonably going after the page without a single objective argument. Please,Iask you again to give a way out.Thank you for your help--Virginal6 (talk) 10:54, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I can only suggest, as I did previously, that you take this matter to WP:DRV. The consensus within the discussion was, in my opinion, in favour of deletion once a variety of obvious sockpuppets were identified. Fritzpoll (talk) 11:05, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Dear F, THERE ARE NOT THE SAME PAGES Iberian-Guanche and Iberian-Canarian pages.Why then remove the 2nd one? I cannot understand how you rely on Trigaranus and do not look at the page. Again,another matter arised in previous discussions is that Arnaiz-Villena is hunted for the 2nd time , as he was some years ago because of a Palestinian paper he wrote.If this could be the case,please ask to remove his quotation (not necessary) from the Iberian-Canarian inscriptions.Trigaranus is obsessed with Arnaiz-Villena. Thank you. --Virginal6 (talk) 12:09, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Being an administrator, I can (and did) read and compare both copies of the pages you describe - I rely on noone else to make decisions when asked to review. Beyond the titles, these articles are identical - as there was no consensus in the deletion discussion for a redirect to a new title, the recreation of the material is prohibited by WP:CSD#G4. Please refer to WP:DRV for a more constructive means of advancing this discussion.
On a separate note, I intend to begin an investigation into sockpuppetry, since it seems that you and the other editors commenting on this erroneous deletion are the same person. Best wishes Fritzpoll (talk) 12:17, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Dear F, I would like to be one of the other editors and have the expertise in Wikipedia managing that they show to have. They ovbiously do not belong to my generation,they must be younger(I am not Iberomes,definetively)And if I knew that you do not have any conexion with the certain bigot ring of linguists(the Iberian "specialists"),who can damage me,I would disclose my personal details right now. But this is not the point:Iberomes. did many changes on references and evidences in the 2nd different page that you deleted.Particularly one that I would not have thought.The much accepted work of Federico Krutwig comparing Basque and Guanche languages,which I will include in Wikipedia.You have also deleted this information,not challenged until now- I agree with you that there may be many people with different names ,and acting in the name of others .In my town ,I know one professor ;somebody is using his name in Wikipedia as administrator(with his permission).I can give you more details (with his permission)for your new page.I would ask you again restoring the second page (Iberian Canarian) Why cannot you do it?--Virginal6 (talk) 14:13, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

It would be against my interpretation of consensus at the deletion discussion. I invite you to open a deletion review, where other editors/administrators will be able to reinterpret the discussion and take additional action to restore the article, reopen the debate, or endorse my interpretation. Such a discussion would not be interpreted by me, but by other administrators. That is the best option that I can offer you, I'm afraid. Fritzpoll (talk) 14:47, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Dear F, could you then please go on and open a deletion review,please?. Thank you--Virginal6 (talk) 16:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, no. You have to open it. There is a procedure laid out at WP:DRV; if you do not understand the procedure, feel free to ask me questions. Fritzpoll (talk) 17:19, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rate My Poo

There was no consensus here, there was trouble accessing the sources. If you don't restore I will submit it to WP:DRV.--Otterathome (talk) 16:12, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

There was one source claimable as reliable, which is the one that the others cannot access. The discussion favoured deletion on the basis of failing WP:WEB, which is acceptable because it requires multiple reliable sources. The article provided one, and you indicated that this was all you had. To my mind, this indicated that the consensus for the discussion was to delete. I am happy to consider your views on why you felt there was no consensus, but if you do not feel able to further expound them than you already have, please feel free to refer this to WP:DRV. Best wishes, Fritzpoll (talk) 16:52, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Bangladesh

Fritz. Can you please restore the missing directory of towns and villages in Bangladesh to the WikiProject Bangladesh space. Its just several users are creating quite good articles on villages in Bangladesh -there is even a wikiproject on it but they are messing up the coordinates and don't know how to do it. If I could generate the articles for them, they can expand later. E.g Bhumsara, I just had to sort out the coordinates. Dr. Blofeld White cat 18:17, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: Just strolling through....

Nope, not gone for good - just had a massive case of real-life for the best part of a year! Will hopefully be around a bit more, you know that I won't be able to stay away from The Apprentice project! Hope all is well with you, check you out Mr Admin! Seaserpent85 15:43, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MZMcBride

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MZMcBride/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MZMcBride/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Tiptoety talk 02:39, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of University of Texas at Austin rankings

First, thanks for closing List of University of Texas at Austin rankings. I just want to respond to your question: "I feel it also necessary to echo DGG's comment here: if the nominator believed that a merge was the most appropriate course of action, why was this brouht to AfD? Begin discussions on the talkpages of the other two rankings pages if merges are desirable, as these debates seem to indicate is true." The reason I brought it to AfD instead of commenting on the talk pages of these articles is that I thought it would be a much more efficient method to get a consensus. Purdue University academic rankings, for example, has five TOTAL non-bot edits to its page in the last 2.5 YEARS (averaging one edit every six months or so) and no discussion page even created. I felt very confident that for a page with such little traffic nobody would respond to discussions on its talk page. I have posed questions in the past on articles with MUCH more traffic and still oftentimes nobody responds. I felt very confident that if I posted a new discussion on these pages, there'd be no response and thus AfD seemed like a much more effective method as I knew there'd be outside input. I can certainly propose merging on the two remaining articles' talk pages, but I'm fairly certain nobody will contribute to the discussion. What's the appropriate time to wait before just doing the merge myself or seeking other outside input? 1 month? 3 months? Personally, I think the consensus has been strong enough to warrant a merge for the two other articles already. Cheers, -Bluedog423Talk 05:14, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your message, and I'm happy to respond. AfD is literally a forum for deletion discussions - in many ways, I follow DGG's philosophy that AfD is a fundamentally incorrect forum to discuss editorial issues such as merges, but I acknowledge that in many cases this is a more preferable outcome to deletion. I also understand your comment that it is difficult to get comments on talkpages, but there are some ways to increase discussion visibility. One of those is WP:RFC, which is often incorrectly viewed as a DR tool (which is actually located at WP:RFC/U) but where you can post up editorial issues and hope for comments. In the case of merges, you can tag the target article and the article you wish to merge so that anyone looking at the page knows that you wish to merge. Finally, one of the best ways to achieve this is WP:BRD - be bold, wait for someone to revert, and then you've highlighted someone to discuss with. I would cite WP:BRD in your edit summaries in the hope that people will take it to the talkpage. If noone reverts, then noone cares that much about it, and it's ok! :) I hope that helps, and I am of course happy to answer any followups you have now or in the future. Best wishes, Fritzpoll (talk) 11:12, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Bangladesh

Fritz. Can you please restore the missing directory of towns and villages in Bangladesh to the WikiProject Bangladesh space. Its just several users are creating quite good articles on villages in Bangladesh -there is even a wikiproject on it but they are messing up the coordinates and don't know how to do it. If I could generate the articles for them, they can expand later. E.g Bhumsara, I just had to sort out the coordinates. Dr. Blofeld White cat 18:17, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Cool - what page is it that you need? (Fritzpoll needs a link because he's a bit dumb) Fritzpoll (talk) 16:09, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry we have it now. Dr. Blofeld White cat 22:22, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Course of action on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The German Student (radio)

Thanks for closing the discussion on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The German Student (radio). I just have a question though: as you've noticed, the discussion was about 63 articles, however only the first one has been deleted. How about the other 62? Do we need an independant discussion for each of them? You wrote that you won't prevent people from setting up redirects - does that mean that somebody should go ahead and merge what can be merged as per DGG's suggestion? If you could clarify the course of action, that would be great! Thanks. Laurent (talk) 12:45, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the intention of mine is to delete the remaining articles unless they are set up as redirects. This is because, although there were many comments that there was no mergeable material, I thought I would make it easy for someone to check it out first. I'll give it a few days, then work through the list. Non-redirects will be deleted. Fritzpoll (talk) 13:31, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Review Jon Main AfD?

Hello Fritzpoll, As I recall there were plenty of sources that dealt with him as the primary topic. Could you please A) look over those sources once again and let me know if you agree that it meets WP:N and if not B) userfy the article (just the references would be fine) so I can decide if I want to go to DrV (and have a reasonable argument if I do). Thanks, Hobit (talk) 14:29, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Doing..... (have to find the AfD first!) Fritzpoll (talk) 14:44, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
My review indicates that (as the outcome of the discussion indicated), most of the supplied sources dealt with him trivially (or not at all, like source 8, the BBC article), were fan sites (ayorkshirewomble.com is likely not to be considered reliable) or were of the same geographic region of coverage that (according to Note #4 of WP:N) they could not be considered multiple works. I think this is why the discussion tended towards him failing WP:N and then, since he fails WP:ATHLETE by agreement of participants on both sides, it tended towards deletion overall. I suspect that, if proponents expect him to "go pro" then he will be able to have an article without risking deletion - but only when he goes pro. Give me a target to usefy to, and if you still want it, I will do it, with my usual caveats that it should not be moved to the mainsapce without a check from someone else or an overturn at DRV. Best wishes, Fritzpoll (talk) 15:01, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
I would like a copy. I don't think note #4 applies here, but I need to look it over to be sure. A quick look over of 3 links showed me 3 good articles (though 2 of them were only 2 paragraphs or so) on the topic. Don't recall the details. If I do a DrV it will be over the weekend... Thanks! Hobit (talk) 18:43, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

YouTube_cat_abuse_incident

Can I get the source code for the deleted article so I can put it in Anonymous (group) and/or Internet vigilantism? --Piepie (talk) 17:12, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Replied at talkpage Fritzpoll (talk) 17:22, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Neal Turner Article

  • Hello, I understand that when the speedy deletion tag was removed, it was because the article asserted notability, not because it established it, but this artist has sold over 1700 paintings and is listed in several French art reference sites. As well as not being familiar with the art reference sites in France, not fluent in French and therefore unable to read what is written on those sites, the users voting for deletion seem to have a limited, general knowledge of contemporary art in France. It would seem to me that just selling over 1700 paintings by the age of 45, as this artist has done, is notable. Perhaps you missed that part of the discussion. Several points were never addressed. Also, if the article asserted notability, and references were provided to attest to that assertion, why would the question of deletion come up at that point? Thank you for your time. - Ulyssescoat (talk) 12:29, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
    The sources provided did not, in the eyes of participants in the discussion, give a sufficient ground to establish notability. "Notability" is, rather unfortunately, not used on Wikipedia in the same way as one might use it in the real world. Instead, it refers to a set of inclusion guidelines, in this case WP:N or WP:CREATIVE, that allow admission. The sources in the article appear to have failed to satisfy these policies on the issue of finding third-party, reliable sources that proved the subject was worthy of discussion. If you want more help, please feel free to ask, as I appreciate that Wikipedia can be a baffling place at times, and can be especially so when something has been deleted! If you really feel I've screwed this one up, you can ask the community for a deletion review, but I think we can chat a bit more before it comes to that. Best wishes Fritzpoll (talk) 12:46, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
    Thank you for your help. What you referred to was exactly what my concern was about. The question was not of notability itself, but, as you stated, failing to satisfy the WP:N guidelines on the issue of third-party reliable sources concerning notability. The sources provided were in France, as this is an American artist living in France. They are reliable and third-party. They are also in French, and while the Maison des Artistes is the main source, it contains all the information in the article. Also, the Maison des Artistes really is the most respected artist organization in France. The importance of their involvement in French contemporary art and with contemporary artists in France and the 'reliability' of the organization are well known in France. Also, while some of the discussion ended up being interesting and worthwhile, much of it seemed to be commentary by uninformed users. My impression was that this type of discussion in Wikipedia is not a vote, but based on valid arguments. Perhaps I am wrong. Wikipedia is a baffling place, and I would prefer to discuss this with you before asking the community for a deletion review. Thank you again for your help. - Ulyssescoat (talk) 13:14, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
    If you can hang tight until around this time tomorrow, I will conduct a more detailed review of my close and check the discussion. I didn't count votes, obviously, and did inform myself from the discussion, but I need some time to check what I might have missed. By this time tomorrow, I will have had time. Fritzpoll (talk) 13:27, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
    Thank you. Sorry if I implied that I thought you counted votes. I am unsure of how this process works, and learning as I go. I know that the number of 'votes' are not supposed to have a bearing on the outcome, but that kind of thing is hard to overlook, and as I stated in the discussion, after looking at the talk pages of the users involved, I noticed that, for the most part, they knew each other. While I'm sure they were trying to be objective, this was another aspect of the discussion that was, for me, hard to overlook. - Ulyssescoat (talk) 13:57, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
    No problem - talk to you tomorrow Fritzpoll (talk) 14:58, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Youtube Cat Abuse Incident

Hi, I was wondering if it would be possible to revisit your decision on the YouTube cat abuse incident. You deleted it citing WP:NOTNEWS. In my opinion, WP:NOTNEWS didn't really apply in this case, as the story had an extremely wide circulation, with stories being run by reliable sources in Ireland, the UK, and Russia, among other places. I think that the story had enough notability over and above a normal news story that that argument didn't apply. Thanks. Umbralcorax (talk) 15:16, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

You may wish to talk to the user above. They are merging the content into other, more appropriate articles with some minor assistance from me. :) My close of the discussion is not based on a personal preference or opinion on the topic, but on my interpretation of the arguments. In my interpretation, the arguments that WP:NOT#NEWS applies were stronger on the basis of the sources supplied at the time of deletion. You are welcome to challenge me further on this, and I will happily discuss it with you, or you can ask for outside input at a deletion review. Best wishes, Fritzpoll (talk) 15:30, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
I am also asking that this be reconsidered. Both sides had reasonable arguments, and the numbers were roughly equivalent, so the closure should have been "no consensus." *** Crotalus *** 17:22, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Numbers are irrelevant :) The arguments were what I based it on, I saw lots of people saying notable, but mostly not really saying why, so the appeal to our policy of WP:NOT was stronger in the discussion that the appeal to the less important guideline of WP:N. As I always say to these comments, you are free to open a deletion review, but since the content has been/is being incorporated into other articles (see a couple of sections above this one), might I suggest the compromise of a redirect to the appropriate section of one of these articles? Fritzpoll (talk) 10:06, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Further development

I am contacting you because your judgment plausibly closed a recent AfD thread -- with unanticipated consequences; and perhaps you can help in some way which mitigates the need to re-invent the wheel. Please see Talk:Inner Asia during the Tang Dynasty#Semi-protection needed. --Tenmei (talk) 16:00, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Responded at linked page Fritzpoll (talk) 17:22, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry for whatever can be construed as my part in the stressful exchanges of the past week. In retrospect, every well-intentioned contribution just made this situation worse because the most relevant factors were not within the ambit of anything written explicitly presented on the screen in front of me.
I regret the extent to which my contributions exacerbated a problem I was trying to mitigate. No one could have been more surprised than me as I continued producing the opposite of intended results. I'm not unsubtle; but all I can say at this point is that I will continue trying to learn from my mistakes. I know this isn't much of an apology; but there you have it. --Tenmei (talk) 15:28, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for YouTube cat abuse incident

An editor has asked for a deletion review of YouTube cat abuse incident. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedy-deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. WikiScrubber (talk) 20:55, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Neal Turner Article

Ok, I've reviewed the sources for the article, and here are my comments:

  • Two of the four sources point to [www.artistescontemporains.org], which, from what I have read in the FAQ is essentially a self-submission site. You have to be the member of a particular group, provide them with details, and I notice that you can edit the page yourself (FAQ 9). These are not reliable sources to establish notability, because they are self-published. For example, I could set up a webpage tomorrow saying that I am an artist specialising in fine art, whereas in reality I can barely draw. From our perspective, these sources are self-published and so cannot determine notability.
  • I can't get at the other two sources, for obvious reasons (they are paper-based) but I can assess them based on the materials that they are used to reference. Specifically they reference Mr. Turner's first solo exhibition. Looking at our guidance at WP:CREATIVE, which covers Mr. Turner's field, this is nowhere near the standard required for a Wikipedia entry.

If you can find additional sources that you can show me meet the bullet points at WP:CREATIVE, I will happily reconsider. If you still think I'm wrong (I won't take offence), I suggest that you open up a deletion review and get more feedback, but I honestly think that, for now, Neal Turner's biography does not meet our inclusion requirements. Fritzpoll (talk) 09:54, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Well, it's true that the Maison des Artistes site, artistescontemporains.org, requires that the artist upload photographs of their work, and in that sense it is self-submission, but it is somewhat more complicated than that, as to be able to upload photographs the artist has to belong to the Maison des Artists, and I'm not sure what the English translation of this is, but the artist has have had done de cotisation, which means that the artist must have contributed money to the Maison des Artistes, and for this to be necessary the artist must make a certain sum of money each year from the sale of their work. I'm not sure of what exactly that sum is, although I think it is considerable as it is based on the amount required to pay taxes on the income. There are thousands of artists in the Maison des Artistes, but comparable few of them fall into this category. In this context, the artist is assumed to be legit. In any case, all artists provide photographs of their work to publications, be they print or online. The question seems to be is the source reliable, and I agree that if you look at the front page it seems as if any artist could upload anything they wanted, but if you examine the process more closely you will find that this is not the case, and that inclusion in this site requires much more, basically that the artist be a contributing member of the Maison des Artistes. The sites states that the site "est réservée aux membres de l'association MdA, à jour de cotisation au moment de la demande d’inscription à « artistes contemporains.org (is reserved for 'contributing' members of the association the Maison des Artistes at the moment of they join the site). I also referenced a gallery, http://www.olivergallery.com/portfolio.html, but for some reason that was removed, and I found a page on eBay that shows the artist's work in the film, The Double Born, as well as two gallery shows, http://members.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewUserPage&userid=blast1915, but I did not have time to list that reference as I did not understand what was happening and why the other reference had been removed. I don't know if the artist is notable enough to be listed in Wikipedia, but as there are other contemporary artists listed in Wikipedia with less notability, less references and less exposure, and in that respect I don't see why this artist would not be listed. I contacted one of the users, in the beginning of this, about the notability tag placed on the article, and basically I did not understand what was meant by notability and wanted help as I had made the mistake of thinking that that notability had been established in the first discussion, and two minutes later he or she left the message "I don't have time for this BS." Two minutes after that the article was nominated to be deleted. The article had existed for over a year without any references. I placed the references on it and that was how this started. I'm not sure I understand why. - Ulyssescoat (talk) 10:52, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
    Alas, I fear that membership of the body and making lots of money as an artist probably doesn't qualify for our notability guidelines. I'm sorry if someone took it upon themselves to be deliberately rude to you as well when you asked a reasonable question. That should not be the norm around here. As to how this happened, somone came across the article, tagged it to place it in a category of articles that have uncertain notability. They seem to have decided that they couldn't find the sources and so sent it to be discussed at AfD. It wasn't because you added references - I suspect this was a coincidence of timing. Possibly your edits showed up in the recent changes lists and that attracted attention, but that is all. Sorry I can't be of more help on this point. Fritzpoll (talk) 11:03, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
    I understand. I wasn't trying to show that the artist made money, but that the reference to the Maison des Artistes is reliable. My discussion of membership was meant to show that the reference is reliable. And it is possible that it was a coincidence of timing. Do you think that the four sources in the article and the other two I listed above are not reliable and/or sufficient? - Ulyssescoat (talk) 11:31, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
    Just out of curiosity what are you doing your PhD in? I did a dissertation on periods of transition in philosophy. - Ulyssescoat (talk) 11:39, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
    Nothing so grand as that, I fear. My work is in the field of robotics - I don't tend to talk about it much because if I gave any more detail, people could easily find me. :) I am interested in philosophy though, albeit purely as an amateur student. As to your references, I feel they do little to establish notability per the guidance at WP:CREATIVE. Best, Fritzpoll (talk) 11:54, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
    Fair enough. I think that if I do decide to continue with the article, I'll find more references, and then rewrite and resubmit it. For now I'll leave it alone. Good luck with your work, and thank you for your help. - Ulyssescoat (talk) 12:11, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
    Not a problem - if you do find you want to do more work on it, I can userfy the existing page for you so that you don't have to work on it from scratch. Happy editing! Fritzpoll (talk) 12:14, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
    Thank you. - Ulyssescoat (talk) 12:26, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry

First time deletion review - was not at all meant as an attack on you, rather a comment on the improper application of policy. WikiScrubber (talk) 12:59, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Heh - don't think there was any attack, and whilst I disagree about the idea that policy was misapplied, I just thought it would have been helpful to discuss it with me first. Best wishes Fritzpoll (talk) 13:00, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Lightmouse

I may be out of place in asking this. As I'm sure you're aware, your fellow bot programmer Lightmouse is under heavy attack in the Date delinking arbitration case. Having perused the Bot Owners' Noticeboard and seen the quality of complaints there – soome of which appear very clearly justified – and seeing how courteous and responsive to complaints Lightmouse is by comparison, could you perhaps seeing your way to weighing in on the "Evidence" page to lend some support to Lightmouse? I believe that coming from you as a member of Bot Approvals Group, such commentary might carry more weight with arbitrators than the comments of a run-of-the-mill editor like myself.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 17:27, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. I'm not sure about this for several reasons, the most significant of which is that I'm not very familiar with Lightmouse. I'll give it some thought, but beware the dreaded WP:CANVASS.... Fritzpoll (talk) 17:34, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. My message above marks the first time that I've asked anyone not previously involved in the case to weigh in, so I don't think that I've run afoul of WP:CANVASS.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 17:41, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Oh, I know - I was just warning you to be careful in case my comment persuaded you to dash off notes to other people :) Fritzpoll (talk) 18:13, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment on deletion review

I obviously don't.   :-)   I was only referring to the appearance given by your closing comments. I could hazard a guess given your comments in the review, but to be quite honest I didn't even read half of it. (That review is going to be another 'fun' close.) I intentionally left your name out of my statement; I was attempting to comment on the AfD in question and not on the original article or you personally. I am very sorry if my statement came across any other way. – 74  20:31, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
That's ok - perhaps my close reads as having an opinion. I obviously would hope that people realised that I didn't. I just read the discussion and thought about the comments that had been made. I assumed that was my job, but others (not you) seem to want me to engage in a vote counting exercise. Fritzpoll (talk) 23:17, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The German Student (radio)

Please userfy the 63 articles to a workspaces I have set up at User:MichelQSchmidt/sandbox/63 Radio Tales. I expect it will take several months of work, but feel I can combine and properly source these to meet concerns of the AfD. If not, I will then empty the workspaces and request CSD. Thank you, Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

They are all still there - you can move them without me :) I will move the single deleted article into your userspace for you Fritzpoll (talk) 09:25, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. I knew they were there (last I looked) but did not want to run into any GFDL problems. Should I actually "move" them.... or will copy-paste do as well? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 18:14, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
I'd actually move them, then the history is preserved and your additions will be made on top Fritzpoll (talk) 10:02, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. As you might suppose, it will take a while. Best, Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 17:21, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
They have all now been moved to my sandboxes and I am now going through them one by one to remove the now unneeded AfD templates and to correct cats. This is going to be a very long project. Thank you for the guidence. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:31, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Yvonne Bradley article

I see you closed an {{afd}} on the article Yvonne Bradley. I would have participated in this afd, if I had been aware of it.

Personally, I think the redirection was a mistake. My understanding of the deletion policy is that a decision not to keep an article should be based on the merits of covering the topic -- not on the current state of the article. Have I got that right?

I spent some time looking for references. User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/rescue/Yvonne Bradley. I think there are lots of good references to support an independent article on Lieutenant Colonel Bradley. Geo Swan (talk) 03:44, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

On an unrelated point, why did you choose to redirect to a sub-section heading? Wikilinks from one article to another are well supported by the underlying wikimedia software. But redirection to a sub-section heading is very poorly supported.
Wikilinks from one full article to another full article don't break when an article is moved from one name to another. This is a very powerful advantage the wikimedia software provides to ordinary world-wide-web pages, where links break all the time.
And the wikimedia software properly supports "what links here" -- another related very powerful advantage the wikimedia software has over ordinary world-wide-web pages -- where you can really have no clue what other pages link to the current page. The wikimedia software has no equivalent for "what links here" when a wikilink is to a subsection heading in another article, or within the same article. If the subsection heading is changed, even a minor change in capitalization, spelling or punctuation, will break links to a sub-section heading.


Over and above the problem with the minor changes in the subsection heading breaking this kind of wikilinks, there is no mechanism for good faith contributors to check first to see whether an edit to a section heading will break wikilinks -- because the software won't report that the section heading is the target of wikilinks.
Would it be desirable to have wikilinks at a more precise level of granularity than the article level? Sure -- provided it didn't complicate the wikimedia markup language and wikimedia interface. Without claiming to be a talented software designer I can't think of how to add this functionality, while having the interface remain simple to use.
So, in my opinion, while it is technically possible to link to sub-section heading, I think it should be deprecated in article space. Geo Swan (talk) 03:46, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough - if you haven't already done so, I will try to get round to fixing the redirect. As to your disagreement with my close, I can only say that this outcome was the balance of the discussion - do your sources show notability independent of her involvement in this case? Best wishes Fritzpoll (talk) 08:03, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
With regard to "notability independent of her involvement in this case..." -- a couple of years ago a wag suggested that the article on UK Prime Minister Tony Blair should really be redirected to the article George W. Bush -- because no one would have ever have heard of him if it weren't for his support of Bush's war policies. The wag suggested that the Tony Blair article lapsed from BLP1E -- that the "one event" was his support of George W. Bush. While this wag was kidding I think he made a very valid point about the essential arbitrariness arguing whether someone's notability was dependent on, or independent of someone else's. That wag could have dug up many articles and editorials that described Blair as "Bush's poodle".
Back in 2006, during the earlier Presidentially authorized military commissions, Bradley faced possible contempt charges. Mohammed had told her he didn't want a military defense counsel, that he didn't trust military defense counsels. Bradley told Kohlmann, the Presiding Officer, that her understanding of the Illinois Bar regulations were that she could be disbarred, permanently lose her liscense to practice law, if she agreed to comply with her orders to represent Mohammed against his will.
Bradley was quoted, extensively, in a 2008 paper in the Stanford Law Review, about the enormous difficulties of establishing trust with one's clients, in a prison where one's clients were completely cut off from their family and from all other news of the outside world.
I know some contributors might argue that an article on Bradley would lapse from compliance with BLP1E. I strongly disagree. Many times I find what proponents of BLP1E consider "one event" are really multiple events. Being killed in the WTC during 9-11 -- that would be a good example of BLP1E. But Bradley:
  1. Claimed she faced being disbarred if she followed her orders to defend Mohammed against his will in 2006. Faced punishment for her stand, plead the fifth amendment;
  2. Had mulitple article published under her name about her experiences in high profile publications'
  3. Has been profiled and interviewed in multiple high profile publications;
  4. Met with UK cabinet minister David Milliband;
  5. Reported that she found Mohammed's weight so severely reduced during her last visit to him at Guantanamo, that she feared his death was imminent and that he could die while the release negotiations were underway;
When someone's lawyer remains faceless, when their own views remain unknown, I agree they don't merit independent coverage. I suggest this is far from the case with Bradley
Are you familiar with Ted Nelson's work? He designed a system, forty years ago, which would have been more powerful and more useful than the wikipedia. He is the guy who coined the term "hypertext". He foresaw the power of bidirectional links, way back in the days of punch cards and batch processing. And one of the important points he made was that the hierarchies of experts were arbitrary. Alternate disciplines established alternate heirarchies.
Nelson was, remains, a great visionary. And the vision he saw, which I follow, is that projects like his, and like the wikipedia, allow the reader to be in control, allow the reader to navigate their own path. That long, detailed Stanford Law Review article I mentioned focuses on the lawyers, and, in that article, their clients are of secondary importance.
If we shoehorn the material on Bradley into the article on Mohammed, we are really establishing, or encouraging, an arbitrary heirarchy, that Mohammed is more important than Bradley. But, if you were a reader who wanted to research lawyers who faced contempt charges; lawyers who faced disbarrment; lawyers forced to plead the fifth amendment; lawyers who found their clients dying before their eyes; you really need the coverage of Bradley to be in an article about Bradley.
There are times when a merge and redirect is appropriate But, in general, if a topic is worth linking to, I would suggest it is worth an article of its own -- at least until such time that links within articles are as well supported as links between one full article and another.
Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 19:30, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
You have me reasonably well-convinced on an individual level, but I maintain that the close reflected the consensus at the debate. What I would like to propose is that I userfy the article to you, and you rewrite the article in exactly the way you describe - because the picture you are painting of the richness and in-depth analysis possible was not present in the article I wiped out a few days ago. If you rewrite it, I will happily nod it into userspace over the existing redirect. What do you say to that? Fritzpoll (talk) 19:57, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
That would work fine for me. Can you place it at User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/review/Yvonne Bradley? Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 20:40, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
As the originator of the Yvonne Bradley article, I fail to see how Fritzpoll's close "reflected the consensus" of the debate. The close was clearly premature, to say the least. And there was no consensus: 2 3 x Keep vs 2 x Delete! Better get nodding it into Geo Swan's userspace before I take the matter up with the powers that be.---PJHaseldine (talk) 21:16, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
AfD is not an exercise in vote-counting - I refer you to our policy of WP:CONSENSUS. I hardly need threatening in order to do what I have said I will do, and I think it is rather churlish that you feel the need to comment in this manner. Fritzpoll (talk) 23:01, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
And your counts (updated) do not include the nominator's implicit desire for the article to delete Fritzpoll (talk) 12:57, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the userification. Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 00:49, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Fritz, Geo asked me to give a look at this. Though, as you probably know, I support much of what he does, I did not comment at this particulr afd, and if I had i would probably have said weak delete, as I think the article as originally written did not adequately show independent notability I think your use of judgement in the case to close as a redirect was reasonable. However, I think you probably should not have deleted the history before doing the redirect--we normally do that only if the original article was copyvio or libelous or impossibly poorly written, or hopelessly promotional, and leave it when it does not show sufficient independent notability. And I think I don't agree with either of you about the disadvantage of redirecting to a section. If the section link fails, it just goes to the top of the article and no harm is done, as explained at Wikipedia:Redirect#Redirects_to_page_sections. Just my opinions, FWIW.DGG (talk) 21:48, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I'm not sure why I deleted prior to redirecting. Since I've userfied the content in any case, I can't actually bring the deleted material back, as you know. It's nice to see someone come along and agree with an AfD close of mine for a change! Cheers, Fritzpoll (talk) 10:48, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Caroline Dunsmore AfD

Hi, this AfD seems to be a clear no consensus which in my understanding should default to keep rather than delete. Could you reconsider this decision? -- Banjeboi 11:05, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Just wandering off to lunch - promise I'll take a look shortly Fritzpoll (talk) 11:56, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
This is a complicated one to answer. When closing a discussion, and administrator generally only has recourse to reading rough consensus. This, however, is a biography of a living person, and the appropriate section of the deletion guidelines for administrators obliges us to consider the BLP policy in addition to this rough consensus. In a sense, the discussion indicated to me that there was the usual WP:NOT#NEWS argument vs. the WP:N notability argument. Bearing in mind that an administrator is meant to weigh comments carefully when the guideline/policy quoted is incorrectly used, I noted that the keep arguments did not refute the portion of the portion of WP:N that indicates that short-burst news stories are an exemption to the general notability guideline. So I considered outright closing this as delete, but I think I'd be receiving endless messages on my page if I had done! :)
If there had been a merge target to shift the material to an article about the trials, etc. as was suggested implicitly within the discussion, I might have done so, but there is little or no material in the article beyond a mini-biography of the convict in question, so a merge would have been unsuitable as it would still be a biography under a different name, which prompts all kinds of WP:BLP1E and WP:COATRACK-type issues that are rightly discouraged by our BLP policy.
At the end of the day, because notability was ambiguous, and on my required assessment of the article against our WP:BLP policy per the guidelines for deletion, the deletion of the article seemed the reasonable outcome of the discussion. My wording of "no consensus - default to delete" was intended more to reflect the fact that I had been obliged to look past the rough consensus (there was none in my reading of the discussion) and also examine the BLP issues. I am happy to discuss this point further with you if you have any other questions or concerns about it - apologies for the length! Fritzpoll (talk) 12:40, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough. As a suggestion, consider posting this to the AfD as well so others can see the reasoning. Either in full or on the AfD talkpage with a bit pointing to it. -- Banjeboi 15:25, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
An excellent suggestion - I will do so Fritzpoll (talk) 15:37, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

IBERIAN-GUANCHE INSCRIPTIONS

I have put up a request for arbitration because of your deletion. --Iberomesornix (talk) 19:00, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification, but I think we should try other steps in Dispute Resolution first. How about a deletion review? :) Fritzpoll (talk) 19:38, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


Dear Fritzpoll,I have posted this message in Jayvdb page.I am opening my own page and I will help more now.Thank you Regards--Virginal6 (talk) 11:36, 8 March 2009 (UTC)Dear Jayvdb,

I have gathered during this week end the following information: 1-Permission for the reference you removed from Commons was sent time ago to the E-mail yo ask. Please,release the reference. 2-They have tagged as Iberomesornix shock-puppets to 3 0o 4 people in order to close down the deletion discussion and the “”Ibero-Guanche “ inscriptions page.. Could not they be just people who agrees or support his views anout “Ibero-Guanche-Inscriptions? I am very bussy but I see I have to open my own page.

Please,look at Dumu Eduba,Trigaranus and Kwamikagani they are acting,CONCERTED,against the “Ibero-Guanche” inscriptions.Are they the same person? Are they shoch-puppets?The same can be said about Iberomesornix and myself. 

Getting into these matters is just distracting  the core question: “Iberian-Guanche inscriptions” are intentionally censored by Spanish scholars at least since the 1980 (when Pichler compiled them),who had the power to do it (Internet did not exist).All their lives work shoud have to be re-written.The same scholars are now fighting to censor the inscriptions in Wikipedia.

See what Trigaranus wrote in my page yesterday:apparently a German gentleman thought like many scholars think now in Spain (including myself):there were Iberian scripts in the Canary Islands.But ,he was convinced by somebody to attach to other interpretations.Censorship worked.

I am also posting this note to Fritzpoll ,who looks like as upset for being utilized.

Thank you . Best regards --Virginal6 (talk) 11:36, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Re Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The German Student (radio)

Well, I've wasted an evening integrating source and first-broadcast information into the Radio Tales article (in the few cases in which I've omitted the date of first broadcast, it was not present in the AfD'd article). Are you ready to follow through with your "delete all" closure by deleting the articles? Deor (talk) 03:54, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Now I guess I mean, Are you going to delete the cross-namespace redirects of the titles to User:MichaelQSchmidt's subpages? Deor (talk) 07:58, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Yep, since he seems ready Fritzpoll (talk) 10:45, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Its going to be one heck of a project... and possibly unsuccessful. But I like a challenge, even if tedious. No doubt the 63 moves might have been acomplished by some special admin tool (chuckle), but it got done. I appreciate the patience you folks have shown. Thank you, Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:03, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Comanche Stallion

I have done a copyedit of my own earlier contributions to the C S article and folded them int a section in the Harry Carey Jr. article. It may need a bit more trimming, but at least we now have a sourced wiki-record about a noble attempt by that aging icon. Being my own original contributions to the deleted article, there is no GFDL worry. Thank you. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:55, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Excellent stuff. I'll still leave the old history in place - the film may, as you say, become active again. Fritzpoll (talk) 08:11, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Jon Main

Hello, Please feel free to delete the userfied version of the article. I think that the "local" argument, while weak, is enough make a DrV unlikely to be successful. Thanks for giving me a shot with it though! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hobit/Jon_MainHobit (talk) 21:42, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Done. Sorry it disn't work out. Fritzpoll (talk) 08:08, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Old bot question

Any thoughts? Enigmamsg 16:50, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The peril of archiving is that I tend to miss things during the busy periods - what substitution does it have to make, what pages, and then yes: I'll do it. Fritzpoll (talk) 16:54, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
I created a bot username a while ago in the hopes of eventually using it for this. The main issue would be finding the articles on people that contain the flag. I mostly found it in articles on old American football players. There are thousands of these floating around. I primarily located them through such categories as Category:Cincinnati Bengals (AFL) players Enigmamsg 17:42, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
If it was on BLPs, could we parse the contents of Category:Living people and search the articles for occurrences of the template in question, then replacing the string? What's the template we're replacing, and what with? Fritzpoll (talk) 09:54, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Should be pretty simplistic. We're looking for flag templates in the birthplace and deathplace fields in the infobox. Example. Enigmamsg 01:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Funny picture to break your heavy discussions

OUUUCHH. Kelly Jones that little sh*t made my nose bleed. Thats what I get for not being up to scratch as a drummer and Cabling TV

Ah, Blofeld, I can always rely on you to break up some necessary, but insgesamt langweilige conversations Fritzpoll (talk) 18:11, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Hehe your discussions here just always seem to be so professional, you seem to attract very serious visitors LOL. Just what you need, having a clown like me about the place. He he. Dr. Blofeld White cat 18:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

My court jester, perhaps?  :) Fritzpoll (talk) 19:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/review/Yvonne Bradley

You may have an opinion on the MfD since you were the one that allowed the original userfication. Just a heads up. Chillum 19:25, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

As you know, the originator withdrew the Yvonne Bradley MfD when the votes went unanimously against him.
I am considering making an undeletion request in relation to the original article, on the basis that:
  1. you might have closed the discussion a little prematurely;
  2. there was not a clear consensus to delete and redirect; and,
  3. additional evidence is available on Yvonne Bradley's notability (eg the article she wrote for New Statesman magazine and Bradley's role in uncovering telegrams which point to MI5 'collusion' in the interrogation of Binyam Mohammed).
Please let me know if you are prepared to undelete the Yvonne Bradley article.---PJHaseldine (talk) 13:55, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
I am aware of this, since I voted to oppose deletion of the subpage. Can you demonstrate that the discussion was closed prematurely, in that there were insufficient opinions expressed to establish consensus? Since you are the creator of this article, I understand that you might be unhappy at the outcome. The evaluation of consensus by an administrator is not a head-counting exercise, it is also an evaluation of the relative strength of the arguments. The arguments in the discussion by those who favoured retention largely fell into the category of WP:ITSNOTABLE - no justification was given as to how the individual satisfied WP:BIO in light of the WP:ONEEVENT clause of our living persons policy, that the deletion guidelines for administrators require me to evaluate in cases like these. Given this, there was suggestion of recourse to the general notability guidelines for notability, but such arguments did not indicate how this article was able to overrule the notability exemptions within the general guideline. This is not my opinion - I do not apply my opinions to closes - but was the valid point suggested by those favouring deletion. On the balance of arguments, therefore, there was (in my analysis) a consensus for deletion. The redirect was a courtesy for usability.
As regards undeletion, there is a small problem. I have moved the entire deleted history of the article to Geo Swan's subpage. He assured me that he could make an unambiguously notable entry, which can then be returned to article space. My strong suggestion to you is to focus your efforts on improving this userspace article to the point where it demonstrates her notability beyond this single event. Provided it is not substantially similar to the deleted copy, you can then safely overwrite the redirect at the article page - but you'll need an admin to do it for WP:GFDL reasons. I am happy to continue this conversation if you have further comments or questions. Fritzpoll (talk) 14:16, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
As to notability, Yvonne Bradley was mentioned in today's Prime Minister's Questions when Leader of the Opposition, David Cameron, called for a judicial inquiry into her revelations of MI5 'collusion' in the interrogation of Binyam Mohammed.
Bradley might not be especially notable in the States but on this side of the pond she's a star!
Subject to any further points you may wish to make, I think I'll plump for a deletion review.---PJHaseldine (talk) 16:29, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

It's Yoga and Larry Schultz.

Hello, I added two articles you closed the AfD on both of them and deleted them both. I was hoping that this debate could run a little longer. I have seen that some AfD's seem to run for years.

Can you also provide me (and the rest of the community) on the number of times that It's Yoga and Larry Schultz have been deleted? I could see when I initially added the article that it had previously been deleted. If there are many deletions, this might support the fact that a worthy article is being deleted again and again.

Given that this is one of the largest yoga brands and/or schools in the world, it seems strange that it is not considered notable. Especially in light of the fact that Larry Schultz is called the creator of power yoga by the main trade publication, Yoga Journal. Maybe you could help to review this issue... Thank you! JT Jtyoga (talk) 13:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

AfDs generally run for five days , unless there's a reason to relist them per WP:RELIST, which didn't apply in this case. In this deletion discussion, I interpreted the consensus of the debate to be towards deletion due to a lack of notability per WP:N or WP:CORP, as expressed by participants in the debate. I don't believe that the close was in error, though I may review it further. If you remain unsatisfied by this, I am happy for you to take this to deletion review in order to check if I have misinterpreted the consensus. Best wishes Fritzpoll (talk) 15:45, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi, yes I would like to take this to deletion review. Could you assist with that? My reading of the consensus before the AfD was closed that the Larry Schultz had only keeps and that the other one It's Yoga had a few deletes, but these were prior to a myself and someone else adding some links re: notability. I think this case is worthy of review. Schultz is certainly notable in the yoga world. Thank you for your help on this! Best, JT Jtyoga (talk) 11:21, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

There are instructions for listing at WP:DRV - please notify me when you have made the listing. Fritzpoll (talk) 11:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi, i have made a posting in deletion review. I have not added any new information, as all the information i have was in the AfD for the two articles and the article pages themselves. Key point is that I think the delete comments that came in on Schultz were before I added citations re: notability. A second important issue is that i think i had the categories wrong for It's Yoga. It's Yoga is not really a 'type' of yoga. It's Yoga is a subset of Power Yoga which right now is just forwarded to Ashtanga Vinyasa Yoga. But I could not find a way to categorize him in this category. (It appears there is no such category.) Thank you, JT Jtyoga (talk) 15:04, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Reverting my edit

I reverted Dog poop girl because of a DRV. How are people suppose to view the article. Not showing the article esp an article with that name is heavily bias. In this case I'm sure you would agree that an RV for DRV is important. Valoem talk 16:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

No. The AfD was closed to redirect. Until the DRV closes in favour of overturning, the AfD result stands. This is not like a case where an article has been deleted, since the text is available in the history. Please do not restore this material again. Fritzpoll (talk) 16:29, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Funny picture to break your heavy discussions

OUUUCHH. Kelly Jones that little sh*t made my nose bleed. Thats what I get for not being up to scratch as a drummer and Cabling TV

Ah, Blofeld, I can always rely on you to break up some necessary, but insgesamt langweilige conversations Fritzpoll (talk) 18:11, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Hehe your discussions here just always seem to be so professional, you seem to attract very serious visitors LOL. Just what you need, having a clown like me about the place. He he. Dr. Blofeld White cat 18:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

My court jester, perhaps?  :) Fritzpoll (talk) 19:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexis Grace (2nd nomination)

At first I was going to take this to DRV but I noticed an argument that wasn't mentioned in the main discussion unless I am missing something. Maybe it was in the DRV (which I can't find right now). There is ample precedent in previous AfD discussions. In fact, some of these discussions aren't even a month old. See here and here. They were the 2 articles put up for AfD at the same time as the original Alexis Grace nomination. And there are lots and lots of others. See here. As I've said in other places, this happens every year. My issue is that if Grace's article needs to be deleted then so do almost all of the AI8 articles unless they pass BLP correct? And for that matter, so would a good chunk of the previous seasons' AI articles. Sarver and Gokey do not have arguments much different than those used in the Grace discussion. If you want to overturn previous precedent, that's your call and I won't dispute that. But then we have to be consistent. Or else we're going through this again the next time.

My point here is that I'm afraid that with a new precedent here, it's going to make future discussions more contentious. So if we are going to have a new precedent, that's fine but then it needs to be evenly used. Very very few of the previous discussions led to delete. In fact I don't remember a then-current finalist on the show having their article deleted while on the show. So it is a new precedent. --User:Woohookitty Diamming fool! 08:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

We don't do precedent in this way for this kind of thing. I can only close an AfD based on the discussion itself, the applicable policies, and WP:BLP where appropriate. AfD isn't a court of law where each new ruling can change the way the rules are enforced. It's true that this may overall lead to inconsistency in application, but I suppose our method is predicated on the idea of small samples of the community commenting at AfD being representative of the whole, which would ideally lead to consistency overall. In reality, this doesn't work.
Our only thing close to "precedent" is policies and guidelines, which document our practices as a community. In the case of policy, these essentially have to be enforced, whilst guidelines offer a little leeway. That's why policy and guidelines will always trump any standard determined by a WikiProject - they can't claim to be representative of the community as a whole, whilst policies and guidelines essentially are. So I'm not overly concerned about "precedent", just about the consensus of the deletion discussion, closed in accordance with WP:DGFA. If you have any further questions or comments, please drop me a line Fritzpoll (talk) 08:50, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
I appreciate that as a fellow admin but honestly, that's going to make my life much harder. :) The AI articles are extremely difficult to keep ahold of as it is but now we're going to get a whole bunch more AfD requests. And not only that but I guarantee you that many will try to recreate the Grace article (though as an admin, I will say that making it a redirect is the right call. It's what's always been done in the past when AI articles have been deleted). But you are correct. We aren't supposed to do precedent for this kind of thing, but many admins do, right or wrong. That's partially why I got out of the AfD closing business. It was way too murky for me on this kind of stuff. So you made the right call by policy but my non-admin side ain't happy about it. :-D
Anyway. I appreciate the response. If you could put the Grace article on your watchlist (if you haven't already), that'd be wonderful. Because as I said, people will try to recreate the article. I won't push this issue any further. I can't say I can argue with your reasoning. --User:Woohookitty Diamming fool! 08:58, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
I will watch out for it, and Im sorry that AfD has made the job you do in any way more difficult. Fritzpoll (talk) 09:10, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
I was being half serious. I've been here long enough (4 1/2 years) to handle a little trouble. :) --User:Woohookitty Diamming fool! 15:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Heh, I've not been here as long, but I've had my fair share of scrapes too. I'm sure this will be no different Fritzpoll (talk) 15:53, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

List of Myer stores

Why did you close this as delete? There was not a consensus either way - you should have closed this as "no consensus". Why are you moderators so biased. You did not read my comment and those other people who called for this to be kept. Please overturn this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by lonelygirl16 (talk • contribs)

Not sure who this is, but here goes: Depends on your defintion of consensus, really. I follow WP:CONSENSUS, and in deletion, I follow the deletion guidelines for administrators, which says that consensus is about the strength of the arguments, not the number of votes cast. I need you to be more specific about why you think this is "no consensus" before I can answer you more effectively. I suspect you only think that I'm biased because the close went against your view, which is a perfectly understandable reaction - if you have grounds for such an accusation, however, I would be happy to consider them Fritzpoll (talk) 08:55, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
my grounds are that you didn't properly consider the keep votes. it doesn't matter so much what the policy says when people put forward good ideas like merging, etc. but yet you just go ahead and delete the page so we can't even get it back to work it into something better in the end. you're also from the UK so you will fail to understand what myer actually is. it is not just an average supermarket, it is a department store which only has so many stores in australia and has a significant history (in different places), hence the list of stores. you haven't even interacted with people or asked them questions as to why or why not, just made a decision on what you think in your own opinion is good, never mind anyone else. that is why you are biased. i'm thankful thought that you have taken the time to respond kindly, which can't be said for Arnzy below or Hesperian on the other page. thank you.
I fear you have made a mistake. I am not meant to interact in the debate - I am only meant to read what is there and weigh the arguments accordingly. Most of the things I read on Wikipedia are things I have never seen or heard - that does not make me biased in considering them; if anything it makes me even more neutral than you are. :) The Myers stores still have an article, so it's not like all available information has been scrubbed. Finally, I am willing to userfy on request. Alternatively, you may wish to consider a deletion review, which cna overturn my close. Fritzpoll (talk) 13:22, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
AFD is not a vote either. But if you counted the "votes", there were more calls for deletes than keeps, but based on the arguments presented the reasons were stronger to delete. --Arnzy (talk · contribs) 12:21, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
but it was not overwhelming calling for delete. you are wrong. why are you intruding on this conversation anyway? I'm asking fritzpoll not you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by lonelygirl16 (talk • contribs)
Last time I counted it was 10 delete, 6 keeps. But the number of votes is not the point here. --Arnzy (talk · contribs) 00:15, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Airi & meiri

Good close. What a mess. Bearian (talk) 17:09, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

The orange bar, the edit summary...."Oh no!", I thought,"what vengeance will be wrought for this latest closure of mine".  :) Nice to see a friendly message! Yeah, very messy - the article needs a good scrub too Fritzpoll (talk) 17:11, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I see you were having trouble. Reminds me something of the twins Fuk Mi and Fuk U Dr. Blofeld White cat 21:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

You know, I seriously looked at that thinking "What unfortunate names". You prankster, you Fritzpoll (talk) 12:14, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Heheh actually I think its Fook Mi and Fook Yu. LOL. Dr. Blofeld White cat 11:01, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: Kenwood, St. George's Hill

Hi, I'm getting some PA and hassle from an unregistered user, concerning this page and the cleanup tag I placed on it several days ago. From the tone of his recent (unsigned) talk-page post, he's either tangled with me before, didn't like the results, and is now trying to send accusations through a sockpuppet, or just doesn't play well with others in the first place. I don't need it, either way. Mind taking a look into the matter... and this rambling article's GA status (which I really don't think it deserves)? Thanks. Zephyrad (talk) 02:59, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

BTW... I was invited several years ago to join the Beatles Wikiproject; I politely declined, because I knew it would mean dealing with Beatles fans, who let fandom override common sense and objectivity. (And I wasn't wrong, as has been proven time and again.) Zephyrad (talk) 03:16, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
I'll take a look now Fritzpoll (talk) 12:14, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

The current MfD for the page that Yvonne Bradley became

Fritzpoll, I was asked by User:PJHaseldine to look at other matters, and I noticed the MfD and then the prior AfD, which you closed as a Merge, which I normally consider a form of Keep, since it essentially leaves the article in place, and, unless the redirect is protected, it remains as an ordinary editorial decision. One step up, usually done only if necessary, is protecting the redirect.

I'm concerned that the MfD has created more fuss than necessary. I've been advising PJH as to how to approach matters less disruptively, and I've already told him that his filing of the MfD was inappropriate, given that your net decision (the userification and new redirect) was likely to lead to a fairly speedy return of the article.

I think that he really did not understand the situation, he's been a bit beset elsewhere. I think that he would withdraw the nomination if he's confident that you will restore the article with reasonable improvements such that it's not likely to set up a reasonably contentious AfD in the future. If he withdraws the nomination, someone can speedy close it, and avoid any further unnecessary disruption. While I do have some suggestions as to what, specifically, you could do, I'm not convinced that they would be much of an improvement over what you will naturally do to even be worth suggesting.

Okay, you twisted my arm. (Actually, I mentioned to PJH that I'd make a suggestion, and I did have something more specific in mind than what I've written above.) You could return to the Merge decision and leave it at that. Anyone can edit an unprotected redirected article. If it's not clear that it's ready for prime time yet, it's just a matter of restoring the redirect. (Actually, can a redirect be placed at the top of an article that's still in place? The tags and categories have already been poked out, but that's easy to fix later.) And I'm sure, given the original AfD, that if there were sources added showing personal notability, in your judgment, you'd have no problem with an edit removing the redirect. Have I read you correctly?

As to the article in its present state (as it sits in user space), I have no opinion, and I'm avoiding forming one. See, if the nomination is withdrawn, I'm still neutral, and I could then close the MfD as a non-admin closure, and I really doubt that anyone would reopen it. But someone else might beat me to it, which would be fine. --Abd (talk) 21:45, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for coming to chat about this - I'm hopeful that you can educate PJHaseldine a little in these matters, since someone he can view as a neutral party is more likely to have success in this arena. I am sure you mean to refer to the DRV rather than the MfD (an unfortunate and unnecessary step taken by another editor on the userspace copy). I am content to leave the structure as you describe in place - a userfied copy in Geo Swan's space, and a redirect that aids reader navigation. I will state (hopefully unambiguously) that I am happy to move the userfied copy back to article space provided that it is not substantially similar to the original copy. For this to be the case, I feel it would be the least disruptive if personal notability, beyond that which was determined at the AfD to be somehow inherited from the event she partook in, can be established. I will even do the merge of the history, and defend my decision at the inevitable DRV/repeat AfD. I hope this is as clear as can be, but I am willing and open to further questions that you, or PJHaseldine, may have. I only ask that those asking questions have open minds as to the respinse they can hope to receive. Best wishes, Fritzpoll (talk) 22:01, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes, the DRV. I do have a further suggestion. The article has been edited since you moved it to userspace. I'm not going to express an opinion on it, because I have not reviewed it in detail and in comparing it to the AfD and DRV comments. However, if it is your opinion that the article is now sufficiently ready for mainspace -- it doesn't have to be perfect! -- then you could shortcircuit the whole DRV process by simply restoring it as sufficiently improved to have tipped your decision in the first place. Do know, please, that I think your original close was completely proper and well-designed to minimize fuss, while paving the way to the return of the article if it were fixed, and it is only PJH's naivete that led to further problems. He seems to be responding well, by all signs. He is, at least, listening and acknowledging my comments, which truly disruptive editors usually will not do, they get angry at anyone so arrogantly daring to offer them advice, when, obviously, it's everyone else who is the problem. You know, of course, that I won't stop at telling him about his mistakes. Those mistakes happened in a context, which I'll eventually get to. --Abd (talk) 22:25, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
I've been monitoring the changes to the article. The sourcing is somewhat improved - but it's not there yet, unfortunately, otherwise I would bypass the process as you suggest, or at least substantially change my contribution to it. The DRV is a shame, as a closure to endorse the AfD result may harden the minds of those who would want the article permanently deleted, making subsequent recreation....problematic from the point of view of more processes, calls for my blood, etc. :) Fritzpoll (talk) 22:49, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
It's tricky. Endorse or Overturn. Endorse leaves it in your hands, not a problem as far as I'm concerned. Remember my philosophy about administrative responsibility. What is your decision, you can change. Overturn returns the article to status quo, likewise would do what some have asked for, i.e., No Consensus, and then anyone can Merge it anyway, dealing with it as an ordinary editorial action, and dealing with conflict, if it arises, following WP:DR. Keep would of course do the same. A rank Delete decision seems unlikely to me, but given that this would effectively be a new decision, my opinion is that it could be then taken back to DRV when ready, if the new closer wouldn't voluntarily decide on a return. Meanwhile the article would stay as it is, with the redirect to the defendant's article. That all this has pretty much the same outcome is one reason why I criticized the editor for filing the DRV in the first place. Much ado about very little. He's probably asleep now, I'd guess, this may all clear up in the morning.
I wouldn't worry, if I were you, about calls for your blood. I see nothing remotely worthy of the guillotine, quite the contrary, the subject closure was just fine, even brilliant, given the state of the AfD. There is no such thing as permanent deletion (well, there is, but it's not at all in the cards here). Status quo: article is in user space, and it's safe there right now. If the editor withdraws the nomination, the DRV will close as withdrawn, almost certainly, and then, with your assistance, I assume, the article will either be brought into condition to return, or later, with the article having been given its best suit of clothes, it will return to DRV. This much is obvious: the worst conclusion regarding the article that would seem reasonable to me, having read the article itself, is that notability is marginal, and might be just below the level for Keep. So an improved article, better than the original AfD dealt with, is quite likely to be kept with some new process. As I noted, I haven't reviewed the specific arguments being made, but the community isn't stupid, it's merely asleep sometimes. I trust that, in the long run, with proper preparation, it will make the right decision. And I think that you have set up conditions for that to happen. PJH likewise made what I think is a good move: he asked for my help. You know and I think he knows that I'm not going to intervene to try to make happen what he wants, but rather to facilitate better process, starting with advising him to stop stirring up shit. This little affair is minor compared to some other stuff. --Abd (talk) 02:36, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Alexis Grace.

Fine. How do I go about nominating the other twelve finalists for deletion, as well as all previous Top 12 finalists who don't have notable careers?

To me, it seems rather ridiculous. Especially if she cracks the Top 5 or beyond. The page will just be recreated. What's the point of eliminating just her right now?--Cinemaniac86Oy_gevalt. 15:16, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

You tell me. I just close deletion discussions according to the consensus established. I don't think you need to nominate them for deletion - the equivalent action to what I've done today would be to replace each of the articles with #REDIRECT [[American Idol (season 8)]]. Of course, if you wish, you can follow the directions at WP:AFD, and make a multiple listing. Best wishes, Fritzpoll (talk) 15:18, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Would you mind if I restore the history of Alexis Grace, pre-deletion? There's really no reason not to have it, since 1) the article is redirected and 2) there's a 99.9999% chance it will be recreated, and having the history in that case is best for GFDL concerns. Cheers, Hermione1980 17:05, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes. The consensus of the AfD was to delete - I added the redirect independently of my decision to delete. The history can be restored if a reason is given for recreation Fritzpoll (talk) 17:07, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
What's ridiculous was deleting her article in the first place. At the rate she's going, she's probably going to finish no lower than seven and after that there's a career waiting for her in music so its unfair that her article is deleted now.--23prootie (talk) 18:58, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Then I'm sure she'll become more notable in time, and be able to have her own article. I don't make the rules, I don't make the consensus: I just have to make a decision about what it is. Fritzpoll (talk) 19:06, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
I hope your still alive cause the discussion at the talk page of American Idol season 8 is now really long. And that's just the first day. I hope you have a lot of patience cause this is going to be a long season.--23prootie (talk) 22:35, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Shouldn't be too problematic for me - I'm only a janitor. Fritzpoll (talk) 23:01, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
As an aside, you might want to read WP:SCRABBLE. We don't have articles on things that might not meet our requirements for inclusion now, just because they might meet the requirements for inclusion at some time in the future. If Alexis goes on to sign a record deal and has a single in the charts, that's the right time to create an article. And of course we'll happily provide the old deleted text to help form the article. Fundamentally though, someone doesn't become notable just because they participated in a television contest. The contest is just a single event, a news story, or topical discussion. If the show becomes the launchpad for a future career that's picked up by the press, that's when we should be enlarging the scope of the article. Let the person's career develop first, then the article will follow. Not the other way around. Hope this helps. Gazimoff 23:07, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Why would you delete the article on Alexis Grace, based on just the few comments on the second AFD, while completly ignoring the 1st AFD? There was overwhelming consensus to keep. Based on both AFD discussions, there are still more editors who wish to keep the article. It just doesn't make any sense. Why? Why? Why?--Jojhutton (talk) 03:14, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

He's very robotic in what he does. He's not gonna listen.--23prootie (talk) 03:30, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
I closed the first one at keep and this looks like a valid deletion. Really the next step is WP:Requests for undeletion. MBisanz talk 03:30, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Both AFDs together have more keeps than deletes. It just make any sense. This should have been resolved the first time, but some want to game the system.--Jojhutton (talk) 03:38, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
AFD is not a vote. Instead, consensus is reached based on the strength of arguments. If it's clear that an article doesn't meet Wikipedia's policies for inclusion, it doesn't matter how much you may like it as it still fails to meet policy and should be removed. Any local wikiproject rules you may have cannot be trumped by Wikipedia's wider policies, as we have minimum standards for inclusion that have to be met regardless. When developing articles, it is important to bear this in mind and almost always better to start from a robust collection of sources first, as to do otherwise means that the article you build is on an unsteady foundation and may ultimately be deleted. If you feel that the wider policies should not apply to your articles you are of course welcome to argue that, but that would be more of a debate with the community and not something suitable for a user's talk page. Many thanks, Gazimoff 07:12, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
This is bull. The only time AFD is not a vote is when the administrator wanting to delete (or keep) the article disagrees with the numbers. At best, combining the two discussions, there is not any type of consensus for deletion. This whole mess smacks of the policy wonks and deletionists flexing their administrative muscles against the puny little plain ol' editors. Yeah, we don't have the tools necessary to keep our writing on the project, so screw us, right? H2O Shipper 11:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
It's actually fairly clear that AfD is not a vote. This section on the AFD page specifically describes it as such. This template is occasionally used to reinforce the fact that it is not a vote, but a discussion. Finally, WP:POLL is the overarching guideline that states that polls should not take the place of discussion. It's not wonkery, it's there in black and white. If you choose not to follow them when creating articles, you shouldn't be surprised if their existence is challenged. Administrators are here to interpret AfD discussions according to consensus based on how the articles meet the policies for inclusion, nothing more. You have all the tools you need to keep an article - the ability to find good quality, reliable secondary sources and the ability to edit pages and add these sources. Gazimoff 11:48, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Utter nonsense. You have the tools to read the article I wrote on Grace. It had five separate reliable sources. It was fairly well-written. Many (if not most) of our stubs are of far less quality. Yet it's deleted, protected, and those of us puny little editors without your fancy tools can't even see the work anymore. What a joke this place is becoming. H2O Shipper 03:09, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Response from Fritzpoll

I was asleep/away from the computer until now, so have only just had time to review the messages here and in my e-mail inbox about this. First off, I am not a deletionist - I have argued with many admins off-wiki about deletions in the past, one of whom is defending me on this very page. I'm also pretty certain that I've been accused of bias for closing AfDs as keep, delete, and redirect, which I hope indicates someone who is a little more neutral than people here would give me credit for.
I close deletion discussions according to the deletion guidelines for administrators. There is no provision for considering the opinions of prior AfDs, or DRVs. This is fair, because consensus can change - and if the opinion still stands, it is presumed that it will come up again during the course of the discussion. Consequently, I closed the AfD based solely on what was discussed during those five days. I have subsequently read the previous AfD and DRV, but they cannot, and should not, play a part in a new deletion discussion. Those who believe this to be wrong should look to amend our policies and guidelines on this.
I have reviewed my close once or twice as a result of a series of emails and off-wiki and on-wiki conversations, and I cannot interpret it any other way. Badgering me about it isn't going to help. There are appropriate forums for this kind of review.
I have also reviewed the allegations of administrative abuse against me - I am not above reproach, and when presented with a good point or argument I will change my stance on something. In this instance, it centres on two points: that I abusively deleted the page because of bias, etc. and then abusively protected it as part of a content dispute.
On the first point...I didn't. That's all I can say really. I had no opinion on American Idol when closing the AfD, I have no particular stance on the subject. That's it. Subsequent to my closure, I received a couple of e-mails commenting on "precedents" for retention, the inconsistency of only having one article deleted. When another user, who had vehemently opposed deletion and recreated the article twice, nominated all the other finalists for deletion, I saw an opportunity for this issue to be resolved, so I commented at the debates that redirection of these articles was the preferable course, and offered the opinion that deletion was an alternative. I never had then, nor have I now, any intention on administrating over the deletion of those articles - such an action would rightly lead me to be hauled up by the community.
Over the course of yesterday, the article was recreated several times, and deleted by me per the appropriate speedy deletion criterion. The recreation, and stated intention to recreate the material despite my suggestion of taking it for deletion review, led me to believe that protection afforded the best course to minimise discruption to the encyclopedia. The question is, was this abuse? Even on reflection, I believe not. If any user honestly believes that I have abused my administrative priviledges in this manner, the appropriate venue for discussion is at WP:AN or WP:AN/I. Alternatively, any user may wish to review WP:DR and determine the appropriate course of action, up to and including arbitration.
When someone wishes to recreate the article, all they have to do is come to me and discuss the reasons why, to make sure that it is not substantially similar to the copy deleted by consensus.
In this (lengthy!) text, I have offered my detractors a series of options to pursue me further through the avenues of dispute resolution. There is also the option for us to all just calm down, and cease the ad hominem attacks - we are all here to produce the best encyclopedia possible. To do that, we have policies and guidelines to assist, and people (like me) to enforce some of them: our actions here are always likely to upset one side or the other. If you don't like a policy being enforced, change the policy. Perhaps we should all take a deep breath, and enjoy a refreshing beverage often consumed in my home country. Fritzpoll (talk) 15:52, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

wow, you sound like a lawyer or a politician. Perhaps you could put it in more laymens terms for the rest of us. I think that you may have bit off more than you can chew on this one. This isn't your normal deletion discussion, with just a single editor (usually the author) wanting to keep. This seems to have ticked off an entire community of editors. Most of whom had no idea that a second Afd was opened.--Jojhutton (talk) 17:25, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Not sure in what sense I've "bitten off more that I can chew". Being short and to the point has not helped me so far, so I tried a more thorough explanation. Which parts would you like explained? Fritzpoll (talk) 17:27, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
I think you've made your case well, Fritzpoll. This page is not the appropriate venue for those who disagree with the decision to debate it endlessly. There are pages specifically for that. As such, I think it may be best if you just let the comments stand without acknowledgment from this point on, Fritzpoll. Nothing constructive will come from those who go by policy debating with those who would prefer to make unnecessary exceptions for subjects they like. ₳dam Zel 18:30, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments. I'm a believer in admin accountability, but perhaps I'll respond simply to comments/questions that are new on this page, and that I haven't covered above. I'd hate to make a blanket exclusion of people from this page. Fritzpoll (talk) 18:33, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
  • There's nothing even resembling "accountability" here. It doesn't matter to those who have end-ran this to get it deleted. Now FP is spinning and lawyering, making certain that he defends his deletion (and now protection) come what may. This whole mess really discourages those of us who -- GASP! -- only enjoy writing articles, and don't particularly care for the "inside baseball" that AFD, DRV, and all that crap has devolved into. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Watershipper (talk • contribs) 03:05, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
    • I've given you your routes out of this - I know you're upset, I even vaguely understand why. I just don't understand why I am the target of your displeasure. Simply saying it doesn't make it so. Fritzpoll (talk) 12:10, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
      Yes, we all understand that you've explained our "legal options", in lieu of simply doing what makes sense, and restoring a well-referenced, well-written article. Instead you're lawyering, protecting the page(s) from creation, and refusing to acknowledge that it makes more common sense (not wiki-legal sense, but "common" sense) to actually notify those who participated at the first AFD. I know you didn't HAVE to do so before deleting the article, but you certainly SHOULD have. And I've grown weary of your saying, "But I didn't HAVE to according to the rules", so if that's going to be your only non-response response, please just ignore this note, as you don't seem to really give a flying f--k what this whole mess does to those of us who write and maintain these type of well-referenced stubs. H2O Shipper 14:27, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
      Ok Fritzpoll (talk) 17:19, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm kinda thinking that this event may be foreshadowing a victory for Alexis. It's weird, I know but maybe this was not a bad thing after all. Anyway, I hope her the best of luck. Hope she goes far in music.--23prootie (talk) 00:53, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
    I don't care how she does. What I care about is what this incident shows us about the admin-based (instead of writer-based), authoritarian culture that has developed here. I, for one, am quite sick of it. H2O Shipper 18:50, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
    Me too, but the point is "writers" like you and me still have a chance of "winning" these arguments so it's OK that's life, people argue. I do get their point though. Imagine season 100 of American Idol, there would be 1,200 articles for contestatnts alone. Anyway, there is a separate forum to discuss the issue not the delete page so hope they do that before attacking any articles. --23prootie (talk) 19:47, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
    If you have a problem with the way Fritzpoll, or any other admin, has handled a matter and you don't seem to be getting anywhere on thier talkpage. I would suggest you take it to the Adminitrator's Noticeboard (Incidents). Please note that continuing on your current path may constitute violation of the Harassment Policy, which can result in restriction or revocation of editing priviledges. Many thanks, Gazimoff 20:33, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
    If you're going to block me, block me. It wouldn't be much different than the behavior of the administrators involved in this mess thus far. And I'm not surprised at all that you're threatening me with a block. Nor do I give a damn. As for going to WP:ANI, not a chance. I came here to write, not politick. Not everyone has those same goals. If pointing that out constitutes harassment in your view, then block me. That's on you, not me, as are the ludicrous deletions and protections that led to this nonsense. H2O Shipper 20:40, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
    You have repeatedly, on and off-wiki, made it clear that you are unhappy. I am aware of this - now put up or shut up. Either take this up elsewhere, or stop talking about it on my talkpage - clearly you aren't going to find what you want here. Fritzpoll (talk) 20:54, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Copies of Deleted Articles

If you could be so kind as to provide copies of several deleted pages, I would be very much grateful. Basically, I'd just like all the pages listed on here. I am not the original author, but if required I can have the original author give his consent.

Thanks, looking forward to your reply.

AJDotNet (talk) 14:52, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm just following up on this. I'd at least like some acknowledgment from someone about recovering these articles. I posted something on Splash's talk page a week ago and have received no acknowledgment from him/her. If there is a procedure you guys must go through that takes a while, I understand and apologize for nagging. I'd just like to know that you guys have gotten my request. If there is something else I am required to do to obtain copies of said articles, tell me what that is. My purpose for wanting these articles is to archive them on another site, as they do not meet your notability requirements. As I stated before, I am not the original author, but an acquaintance of his. If he is the only one who is able to retrieve these articles, let me know and I will have him contact you.
Thanks again, and I hope these articles can be retrieved.
AJDotNet (talk) 01:46, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Missed this message in the kerfuffle over here - can you hang tight until tomorrow? I have multiple demands on my time, sorry! Fritzpoll (talk) 15:39, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
No problem. Thanks for responding.
AJDotNet (talk) 17:40, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Bot on VN geo districts

I left some technical details and info at Blofeld's page just in case it might by useful in mechanising some things, from a chat with User:DHN. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 02:49, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Frasier

Howdy. Did you contact anybody for information afterwards? About the bot. I can see you are too busy to worry about coding because of afds but what do you suggest we do about the situation? I'm still having to do a great number of time consuming repetitive edits which could be done in minutes by a programme. What do we do? Dr. Blofeld White cat 12:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

No, not yet. The AfDs I'm closing are being done because they're quick - the bot is being coded offline. Give me a few hours, and I'll see where I can get to - I literally have the code open. Bear in mind, we'll need a BRFA Fritzpoll (talk) 14:41, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Closure of the Yvonne Bradley DRV as endorsed without prejudice.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_March_11#Yvonne_Bradley

In case you wonder, "Without prejudice" means that the DRV isn't considered fully conclusive; it maintains the status quo, but if, for example, the article is improved and whoever is responsible (you? me? beats me, but I think it doesn't matter) doesn't agree to let it come back in) refuses, then a new DRV could be filed based on the condition of the userfied article at that time.

Some seem to think that the job at DRV is to determine if the admin closing made a mistake. It's not. It is to give articles another review, and always that review should be of the best available version. An admin can make a perfectly correct close, but if new evidence appears establishing notability of a deleted topic, DRV should reverse the decision.

This was my first XfD close. Should I be preparing for the egg-in-the-face? --Abd (talk) 22:01, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Be prepared for one. Not sure it's deserved though. Fritzpoll (talk) 22:04, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of Talk:Yvonne Bradley

Fritzpoll, normally the Talk page of a redirected article would not be deleted, it should stay in place. Would you restore it, please? This whole thing became a bit of a mess because of the userification. Userification is common when an article is deleted, but not when it is Merged. A merged article can actually be worked on in situ, or on a working copy someone makes, it doesn't take an admin.... Once the Talk page is restored, I could do some things to keep all Yvonne Bradley discussion in one place (basically redirect the attached talk page of the userfied article to the mainspace Talk page, copying the current Talk there.

On the other hand, if there was nothing on that old talk page of any substance, forget it, just, please, let me know. Thanks. --Abd (talk) 22:17, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Nothing of substance. Feel free to create. Fritzpoll (talk) 22:49, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. --Abd (talk) 01:46, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

001 Action/RPG Maker

Hi, as you probably know i was the author of the Engine 001 page. Thanks for your offer to discuss with us the improvements that would need to be made for the page to be accepted by the Wikipedia community. I was considering making a page called "001 Action/RPG Maker" for the project instead, as it is its official, albeit lenghty, name. If you could give us a few pointers on foramtting, context ect. that would be awesome.

Cheers.

Evergreen481 (talk) 03:03, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


Your bot needed to add referenced data

Fritz I need your bot to add data from a given source to all the unreferenced articles we have on the districts of Vietnam. PLease see the referenced sentences I;ve been adding to places like Buôn Đôn District. I have a great number to do and I could sure use your bot to add them for me. What I need is for you to process the data here and insert the data into those referenced sentences for each article. Basically the sentences here from "As of 2003 to ref list" need adding for each district and preferably read the population, area and capital figures placed in the correct places. Would you be able to help me out? You did say that you would be up for some cleanup tasks, these are pretty beneficial ones as they are districts with a 1000 or so square kilometres and mostly one liners. Dr. Blofeld White cat 22:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I'm on it. Will code up the task later and submit it for approval Fritzpoll (talk) 17:34, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I could sure use your help on it. I didn;t know though if you ever planned on using the bot again. What I am doing is gradually adding an infobox and translation template to the articles too, the translation template is a bridge to further expansion of the article later. I have also begun making some maps to improve the articles. See Đắk Glei District for instance. If a bot could add an infobox too to any districts I haven't got to so far this would greatly relieve the repetitive edits I would have to do and allow me to try to expand from Vietnamese wiki. I think it is a task that should be cleaned up by a bot rather than manually. Somebody has to develop these one liners into something more substantial! Basically all our articles should have the basics like Buôn Đôn District rather than Hoành Bồ District! Would it be possible for the bot to add something like this. Make all of the articles consistent bascially restarting them with adequate details. I've drawn up nav templates by region all that would need to change would be whatever province it is in and data. You can view the templates at Category:Vietnam district templates Dr. Blofeld White cat 18:50, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Well infoboxes don't need adding any longer I added all those manually so thats one less thing to worry about, we just need to insert the data directly from the page listed into the articles and infoboxes. I've nearly done two regions of Vietnam manually but it very hard going! I've been expanding the articles from sub stubs into ones like An Phu so anything which can at least give everyone population/area and capital figures will be a bonus and allow me to concentrate more on translating them and expanding them. The vast majority Fritz look like Duyên Hải District. Dr. Blofeld White cat 15:25, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Just solving an issue getting to the redirects. Give me another hour - I may be able to do this without a BRFA Fritzpoll (talk) 15:48, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Ugh - having to update the framework I use.... (time slowly ends) Fritzpoll (talk) 18:15, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Fritz can you please try to get the bot coded within 48 hours otherwise I will start getting complaints about the text in the articles without the data. I already promised one guy I'd have in done very soon but there is only so much I can do manually. If you can't do it please tell me and I'll continue trying to get it done manually. Dr. Blofeld White cat 16:12, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Still on it: Am I replacing existing text or just appending new stuff? Fritzpoll (talk) 16:14, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

For most of it the empty sentences have been inserted already for me to come along and enter the data. Like Duyên Hải District, it just needs to add the data and in the infobox. However a number of districts haven't got the sentences yet. It would therefore probably have to be done in two stages or probably best thing is to get the bot to readd the text sentences with the data in them. Are you sure it can be done? Can the bot read the district names as on that website they are plain but on wikipedia they are in the native lettering with District after it e.g will be listed as Duyen Hai not Duyên Hải District as on here. The letters are the same except for the little change. There are however redirects from the plain district names that are listed on that website on here, so perhaps it could read it from that. Dr. Blofeld White cat 16:27, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that was the trick I had to invoke last night - I have it entering in the plain names and following the redirects. I'll output an error log for any that it struggled with. It would be easier to just eliminate the existing sentences and reinsert them. Have the empty sentences all been entered the same way? Fritzpoll (talk) 16:34, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

The articles without any empty text look like Ngọc Lặc District. Yes I think the best thing would be to readd them and get the bot to override the existing empty text, as long as it doesn't overide any I've already added text too!! Hehe. If however it is easier for the bot to overide it all and get it all done consistently I'll have no complaints at all. As long as it can be reinserted and not remove any other existing text such as the list of communes etc or any other info. So basically if Ngọc Lặc District and the others looks like Mỏ Cày District by the end of it all it will be mission accomplished. I'll try to get the second region done manually now, see Category:Vietnam district templates the first two Central Highlands and Mekong are nearly done. It would be best to work through those I'd imagine. Dr. Blofeld White cat 16:34, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

What I'll do is set up a manual review of it, so that I have to decide what do do based on the article content. That has several advantages, such as not requiring a BRFA, and being able to decide what do do with various articles. Should have it done soon (work permitting) Fritzpoll (talk) 16:48, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

OK mate I appreciate that. I doubt it would need a lengthy approval though. As long as the district articles at the end of it consistently contain the referenced data extracted from that page it should be OK. Once that is in place I can work towards developing them further. As long as it doesn't overide any other information in the articles it should be OK. 16:51, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Long term goal is to have all of the districts up to An Phú District length. The move twoards adding consistent initial data is the first step, the rest will need writing manually I'm afraid, unless of course your bot is from Saigon and can translate? Hehe Dr. Blofeld White cat 16:55, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

(e/c) :In the medium term, I'm going to write some software for you to help you perform tasks like these. Watch this space...maybe we'll discuss it by e-mail Fritzpoll (talk) 16:56, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

That would be awesome although I'm pretty dull when it comes to computer programming, you'd need to educate me well! I bet you knew more at the age of 5 than I do about coding! Yes well I also have the Template:Departments of Cameroon to all start too, again using the data from a single statoids page. I just wish there was more people with bot know-how on here that were running bots in the mainspace either generating articles or cleaning up existing ones. Most of the bot editors on here only seem to run bots which drill people messages or make minor edits with links etc. I'm not a lazy person, far from it but with the tasks I do on here with geo articles it sure gets frustrating that I haven't the knowledge to programme something auto-generated to assist me, I can't expect others like yourself to do jobs all the time. Ultimately I wish I could genetically engineer a super editor combining both our talents and just unleash it on wikipedia! Hehe. Dr. Blofeld White cat 17:11, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

If you can use a template, you'd be able to use this program. You won't see the code behind it, or have to fiddle with it. Do you use Windows? Fritzpoll (talk) 17:22, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes Windows XP. For example I just made Template:County-level divisions of Gansu. I now need to administer this nav template at the foot of all the articles listed in there. I know this could quite easily be programmed to be added by auto generation, however my lack of knowledge now means I have to do it manully. You know stuff like that. Some of it is very simple but very repetitive maintenance work that I do. Dr. Blofeld White cat 17:40, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey don't you think your page archiving time frame is a little short? You barely allow 3 days? Dr. Blofeld White cat 11:17, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

uCoz

The article about uCoz has been deleted groundlessly.

First of all uCoz is not a software. It is a service (hosting and CMS). If you want to identify the notability of a service, you must know how many people use it. So, if you measure notability according to the number of press releases and high PR articles, you make a mistake. Because it is an indirect indication which depends on PR activity but not notability. You can see the number of uCoz users by the Alexa rank for the following domains: ucoz.com, ucoz.net, ucoz.org, ucoz.co.uk, ucoz.de, ucoz.es, ucoz.ru, ucoz.ua, ucoz.kz, ucoz.lv, ucoz.cn, at.ua, 3dn.ru, my1.ru, clan.su, moy.su, do.am. Now uCoz has 716189 active users (top.ucoz.com). So, isn't this number an indication of its being a mass service? Meskalyto (talk) 15:41, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I closed the AfD based on the discussion at that venue. Please refer to deletion review if you have any problems with this close, as I'm presently a little busy Fritzpoll (talk) 15:49, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hip Hop culture and Islam

What the heck is up with this afd? The discussion was closed as keep, but the article is a red link and isn't even in the deletion log. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 22:16, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

No idea, but it was moved. See my comment at User_talk:MacGyverMagic#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion.2FHip_Hop_culture_and_Islam Fritzpoll (talk) 22:48, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I did it mainly because of WP:BLP issues. Claiming someone is from a certain religion or ethnic group without providing the sources to back it up can cause complaints and other problems in the current political climate it is asking for trouble. Because the article topic relied on this connection I chose to userfy rather than delete. - Mgm|(talk) 12:20, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm gonna assume you meant to use the word 'articlespace' in that last question. I applied Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material which says unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material can be deleted without discussion. No amount of consensus can counter that policy; if I wanted to I could've deleted the entire article based on that, but I decided to give the author a chance to fix it. By userfying, I followed the AFD outcome to keep the material even though policy didn't require me to do that. -- Mgm|(talk) 12:32, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm glad I was able to clear it up. If you think another user would be more active in fixing the page, please feel free to move it elsewhere or inform them of its userfication. If after a couple of weeks there's no improvement, I'm not going to be lenient anymore. - Mgm|(talk) 14:01, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Restoration of Yvonne Bradley

I should be grateful if you would do the honours and restore the improved Yvonne Bradley article to Wikipedia mainspace.---PJHaseldine (talk) 13:22, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I would like to hear from Geo Swan first, please. It is his userspace, after all. Fritzpoll (talk) 13:25, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
The article isn't quite ready, there are sections which seem polemic, unencyclopedic. It still needs some cleanup; hopefully, though, there are enough sources showing independent notability for it to go back. While theoretically it could be restored without cleanup, if there is enough there to establish notability, it's less disruptive to first satisfy the inevitable objections of biased presentation, etc. So I support waiting for cleanup. It should not take long. Patience, PJH. --Abd (talk) 18:14, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I recognize that restoration, in the article's current state is certain to trigger controversy, possibly an additional {{afd}}. I would perfer to avoid as much controversy as possible.
I continue to think the best approach would be for those with a good faith interest in this article to continue to incorporate additions that would satisfy those who looked at the article who have expressed good-faith concerns, but who would support the inclusion of an improved article. I would prefer to ask for restoration to article space only after more additions have been made.
As earlier, the recent flood of unexpected {{afd}}s leaves me too little time to do much work on this article this week.
Thanks for asking. Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 20:12, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Will refrain from assessing the article for a return to articlespace on the basis of these comments Fritzpoll (talk) 20:37, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
My advice to Fritzpoll is to be bold and restore the article.
Fannying about with concerns that it "is certain to trigger controversy" should not be an issue. Please get on and do it.---PJHaseldine (talk) 21:37, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry - not at this time. Fritzpoll (talk) 21:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
OK - when?---PJHaseldine (talk) 21:55, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
I'll answer that, though of course FP is more than welcome to correct me if I don't get it right. When the article's return to mainspace won't trigger a disruptive AfD. AfDs and DRVs take up massive amounts of editor time, when consensus isn't clear and so debate rages. It is far better to avoid this if possible. You are thinking about one article. We are thinking about the whole project. All of us, here, want the article to return when it's ready. If Fritzpoll were to take your advice and go ahead and restore it, it's just a fact: there would be another AfD, more disruption, and this time a new close by a new admin. Would the decision be better or worse? What I've been trying to tell you, PJH, is that you got a good result from the first AfD. You were lucky. It could easily be worse. Let this go, work on the article in user space, accept or at least consider carefully the advice of senior editors, or editors who are seniors (moi), or anyone, for that matter, seek consensus, don't worry if every last fact of interest is in the article but cooperate to make sure that whatever is there is very solidly sourced, and to make sure that there is sufficient evidence of independent notability, and make sure that the language is encyclopedic and not like some opinion piece or in a chatty style, etc., and then, when it is ready -- could be a few days, depends on how much effort is put in -- the article will go back, I'm sure; if you think it is taking too long, ask me to consider a new DRV. I closed the old one, you know, and there was a method to my madness. I won't do it, though, unless I consider it necessary, because I really do trust Fritzpoll, and you should, too. --Abd (talk) 22:46, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
I am going to respond to this question on User talk:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/review/Yvonne Bradley, and give Fritzpoll back his or her talk page. Geo Swan (talk) 22:06, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks - it's on my watchlist anyway, so I'll chip in if necessary. Fritzpoll (talk) 22:11, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
I, too, will respond there. --Abd (talk) 22:46, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

INre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Casanovva

Please userfy this article to me at User:MichaelQSchmidt/sandbox.Casanovva so I may continue its sourcing for return to mainspace in 18 days when principal filming begins. Thank you. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 19:35, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

 Done at User:MichaelQSchmidt/sandbox/Casanovva Fritzpoll (talk) 20:41, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, I'll be bringing it back in less than three weeks, bigger and better than ever, and appreciate the consideration. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 07:11, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Alexis Grace Drv #2

Hello, I wrote a rather too-long take on the delete !votes in the 2nd AfD. If you aren't already way too sick of the whole topic, I'd like to hear your response. Thanks, Hobit (talk) 00:47, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

This artice needs to stay!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Alexis is the only AI constant who doesn't have an article. Are you anti Alexis Grace?????

He is British, I doubt he knows who Alexis Grace is. MBisanz talk 03:16, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Where is this rather long take? Fritzpoll (talk) 08:00, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Could you explain why the bloody hell you deleted Alexis Grace's profile? If it's the fact that she didn't make the Top 10 then I suggest you also delete the following: Vanessa Olivarez, Charles Grigsby, Matthew Rogers, Lindsay Cardinale, Mikalah Gordon, Melissa McGhee, Kevin Covais, Brandon Rogers, Stephanie Edwards, Josiah Leming, David Hernandez, Amanda Overmyer, Jorge Nunez, Jasmine Murray, Von Smith and Jackie Tohn. It's only fair.

Inner Asia during the Tang Dynasty

Another AFD that you closed is up on RFAR. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Inner Asia during the Tang Dynasty Enjoy, John Vandenberg (chat) 05:57, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks John. Fritzpoll (talk) 10:32, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Redirects

Oh you haven't seen the worst of it. :-D How about endless debates about whether someone was in the "bottom 3" or not. The amount of edits the AI articles get is astonishing at times. But I gotcha. I've learned to just back off at times with it or else it drives me insane. If it's possible, I'd suggest the same thing for you. --User:Woohookitty Diamming fool! 11:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Still getting e-mails. Trying to be less responsive, since I figure folks don't really want to see the replies. :) Fritzpoll (talk) 11:04, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Oh, and I only found out today that there was a DRV on Alexis Grace these past 5 days. Pity noone thought to tell me Fritzpoll (talk) 11:04, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I really don't understand why Alexis Grace doesn't have a page. She is the ONLY I reapeat the ONLY American Idol constant without an article. Why is that? User:Beagle5589 —Preceding undated comment added 11:49, 19 March 2009 (UTC).

There was an AfD discussion and a deletion review, both of which concluded that the article should be deleted Sorry I can't help further at this time. Fritzpoll (talk) 11:55, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Johannite

Can you userfy the article at user:Jmundo/Johannite (Gnostic) so I can try to work with the concerns at the AfD? Thanks, --J.Mundo (talk) 13:37, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

 Done at User:Jmundo/Johannite (Gnostic) Fritzpoll (talk) 13:41, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
That was fast. Thanks!--J.Mundo (talk) 13:43, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Vietnam

How is the coding going? Let me know when you when you are ready to run. Dr. Blofeld White cat 13:53, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

20 mins... Fritzpoll (talk) 14:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

SOunds good. Will it also add the pop, area and capital to the infobox? Dr. Blofeld White cat 14:11, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I've managed to sort out maps anyway have a look at Pleiku. Big improvement I think. Dr. Blofeld White cat 14:37, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Huzzah - just debugging a few things and I'll run the code Fritzpoll (talk) 14:38, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Argh! I can't get it to render the text multiline - it all just turns into a single sentence! Fritzpoll (talk) 14:56, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I suppose you could turn it into a single sentence if you add commas! Dr. Blofeld White cat 15:10, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Heh, except that the text won't render properly if I do! Hang on, fixing... Fritzpoll (talk) 15:11, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Huzzah - just debugging a few things and I'll run the code Fritzpoll (talk) 14:38, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Argh! I can't get it to render the text multiline - it all just turns into a single sentence! Fritzpoll (talk) 14:56, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

How about "The district capital lies at [[]] and as of 2003 the district had a population of 274,265, covering an area of 370 km². [1]

WOuld that work?

Dr. Blofeld White cat 15:10, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

No, the problem is that I extract the text, and as soon as I extract it, all the carriage returns (where you've hit enter) get converted into spaces. So everything in the article ends up on a single line. Fritzpoll (talk) 15:16, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I see so it bloats the width of the page literally to Vietnam? Usually that happens normally when there is a space at the beginning of the sentence but I doubt thats it for the coding. Dr. Blofeld White cat 15:30, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

No, I think it's the way I'm loading the text. Give me a mo. Fritzpoll (talk) 15:49, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I gather no luck? Should I resume doing it manually then? Dr. Blofeld White cat 18:28, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I fear so - I've been busy packing for a holiday, and haven't had time to fix it. So damn close as well. Fritzpoll (talk) 20:22, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Re:

Thank you for the advice, I'll heed your advice so I'd be more gentle to even disruptive vandals and trolls. However, I could not keep cool when Ncmvocalist gave me insults with irrelevant matters and even lied about me. I hate liars, so I have no reason to be nice to him. In fact, I've wondered why he keeps producing unhelpful threads at ANI/AN as if he was an admin clerk. As far as I've known, he is far from "qualified user". But, keeping "civility" in mind would be better for the community' sake. Have a nice weekend.--Caspian blue 15:10, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Orgone#Merging Cloudbuster into Orgone

There is a merger discussion following the close you made recently to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cloudbuster (2nd nomination). Some people are getting a bit snippy, and there is now an AN/I thread discussing the discussion. I do not know if you have any special insight into this topic, but if you know of a way to get people to calm down, debate rationally, and get back to editing - it would be much appreciated. Regards, - Eldereft (cont.) 10:43, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Re:Deletion of History of Israeli-Palestinian conflict origins to 1967

[4] Please userfy the material that was deleted at User:Tiamut/Origins article draft. I'm sure Ashley kennedy3 would like a copy too, as well as Cyptonio. We would like to work to make it an early history article for parts of the conflict currently not covered in sufficient detail in the main article, due to length restrictions. Thanks. Tiamuttalk 12:28, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes very much so, thanks Tiamut. Cryptonio (talk) 13:37, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your role in this AfD. You acted appropriately and fairly. --GHcool (talk) 16:23, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I have performed the userfication as requested Fritzpoll (talk) 20:04, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Thank you Fritzpoll. Happy editing. Tiamuttalk 08:34, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:SPI

Just a reminder that you're always needed in this area. :) Synergy 20:02, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

wp:Rouge admin

It just means your "old-fashioned" I guess. I put it there because you deleted my [I guess] controversial Thunder 1000000 article. For easy reference, a rouge administrator is someone who believes nothing that would not belong in a published encyclopedia should go in Wikipedia. Also that there are no set rules for administrators. Daniel Christensen (talk) 21:13, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Here is your appropriate rank on the Rouge-o-meter:
Orange: Willing to delete everything out of process.
Still not sure how this applies to me - when have I deleted anything out of process, and when have I ever acted as though there are no set rules for administrators? I'm a bit of a process wonk, by and large, so I really stick to the rules. Fritzpoll (talk) 22:20, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Addition to DRV process

Hi, you've been active as an administrator in the DRV process in the past and have mentioned concern over the current notifications to admins when something goes to DRV. As such, I'd like to draw your attention to my suggested change to DRV requirements. Thanks! Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 00:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Request for userification of Cold fusion controversy

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cold fusion controversy (2006). I've seen an off-wiki copy of this article, and it was meticulously sourced and could be a valuable tool for studying particular aspects of the cold fusion controversy, which is inadequately covered (compared to what is available in RS). (It was clearly inappropriate as an article then, for various reasons, not the least of them being authored by an expert with a major COI, though it's possible that some cleaned-up version would eventually serve the project.) Would you mind userfying it for me? Thanks. --Abd (talk) 15:32, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Responded to request at Abd's talkpage Fritzpoll (talk) 15:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, Fritz. Was there a Talk page attached with anything of note? I like to keep these things together unless they are moot. --Abd (talk) 15:48, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Two mins, and I'll look. Fritzpoll (talk) 15:56, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 Done, boss. Fritzpoll (talk) 15:58, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thailand–Ukraine relations

Mostly FYI, the precedent situation is not really towards deletion for those which pass WP:N - it's no consensus/keep boundary. There's a bunch of examples listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greece-Nepal relations if you're interested (which you may not be - dunno). Otherwise your close is probably right - policy goes one way, numbers another, so no consensus is probably correct. WilyD 13:53, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll take a peek, actually, since this will come up a fair bit over the next few months, I suspect. I am of the opinion that "precedents" of this sort are not applicable - if the same deletion arguments apply, show how. Keep would be the argument if I was just looking at policy - "no consensus" saves my talk page from exploding. Fritzpoll (talk) 13:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Oh, I agree with a handful of accounts more or less convinced that bilateral relations are inherently non-notable there's no way one can close as keep without a solid majority of voters (!voters, whatever). While I (obviously) think it should be an easy keep, with the discussion how it is, I don't think you could've done anything differently. WilyD 14:13, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Club Universe

Hi, actually there is no proof that this is copyvio as it's hard to determine which came first. I think it's safe enough to undelete the history on this. IMHO, the myspace page copied what we have but since it's a redirect the issue is somewhat moot. -- Banjeboi 15:18, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

It is a bit tricky. I'd like to undelete the history, since deleting the history beneath a redirect is by and large a pointless exercise. I'd like a bit more analysis of the copyvio issue first though. Fritzpoll (talk) 16:42, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Your comments at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/JzG 3

Thanks for your comments, Fritzpoll. I'd like to explore several issues. If you don't have time to read this, it's unfortunately long, there is no rush.

There was a lot to read here, and one of the first things that strikes me is the dates of the edits. The latest Cold fusion/Talk:Cold fusion edit I can see was over two months ago - why has it taken two months to bring up what essentially amounts to a fairly serious accusation of abuse?

It was brought up when I discovered the situation in January; the problem continued, Rothwell was blocked the second time after the issue of admin abuse had been raised (and rejected by JzG). While I could have gone to AN/I, my experience there with a situation like that is that friends of the admin will overwhelm the process with irrelevancies, that already happened once in this period. AN/I is not a step in WP:DR, so the next step would have been to find a mediator. JzG, however, rejected the effort. Still various attempts were made by various users. It takes time; further, filing RfCs is like pulling teeth for me. It's an enormous amount of work. The RfC was made eventually necessary by the MfD, where it was essentially demanded that I file an RfC or go to ArbComm. It takes days of work to put together something like that. I have a job and children and responsibilities and other stuff to work on. Further, a month ago, I put up notice on User:Abd/Notices looking for someone to intervene with JzG. Nobody appeared. It seems that those who defend him are unable to advise him as to how to stay out of trouble.

It's not uncommon for matters like this to take months to rise to RfC or Arbcomm. The RfC is a prerequisite for going to ArbComm.

The problem for the filer of this dispute is that when these issues have been brought before the community at AN/ANI/ArbCom, nothing has been done. And I mean nothing - no admin has overturned the blacklisting, no consensus has formed to cause an admin to do otherwise and no Arbcom motion or sanction exists that compels Guy's actions to be overturned.

But the issues mentioned are not the focus of the RfC. For the purposes of the RfC, it may be assumed that JzG's actions may have been correct. They weren't correct, in some cases, in other cases it is arguable that they were, but that's moot.

In the RfAr/Clarification JzG filed, many editors noted the problem of action while involved. He did not respond, nor did he respond, ultimately, with this filing. Read his response. Does it acknowledge or deny involvement? Does it acknowledge or deny use of tools while involved? Does it assure the community that he understands the problem, that, whether or not he ever did such a thing, he won't do it henceforth? Those are the prerequisites, at this point, for him keeping his admin bit. He proves the case.

He wrote: Abd has complained at multiple venues about "improper" involvement. Actually, no. I've noted improper use of admin tools when involved. In other words, that he edited Cold fusion isn't a problem. It would be strange indeed if admins were prohibited from editing articles because they took some action with respect to it. The problem arises when the admin then uses tools, after significant involvement. JzG simply tries to turn this into a content dispute with an ugly edge. It works with some editors, it will not work with ArbComm. Durova endorsed this RfC. She's not lightweight, Fritz. She's ScienceApologist's mentor, she claims to agree with JzG's POV on Cold fusion. She knows what the issue is, and she knows what I'm doing, and she knows how important it is, as do some others.

Given this, the filers will have to accept that the issue of content in this article and the listing on the blacklist are not an open issue.

I really don't think the history has been understood. Very little process has been undertaken to overturn the actions themselves. The blacklistings are a violation of blacklist policy, but blacklists are operated by a handful of administrators who closely cooperate, which includes JzG and Beetstra. Beetstra has generally been civil and responsive, and his comments in the RfC are anomalous. (He's told me before to go fly a kite, so to speak, and then he turned around and granted what I was asking for after he thought about it a bit.) The blacklist issues are complex; to address them, I determined that the first thing to do was to get one link whitelisted from lenr-canr.org, a particular link to a paper which is not easily available elsewhere. Beetstra, in the end, whitelisted it, and, while there was edit warring over it for a time, it now stands at Martin Fleischmann. Along the way, the copyright violation allegation that was made as part of the blacklisting debates has been demolished. There wasn't linkspamming, which was my first concern. The blacklists are being used to control content, which is outside the design. To address this is a huge thing, and to do it requires building up specific cases, and to do that nondisruptively requires one-step-at-a-time patience. Ultimately, I do believe I have solutions to the blacklist problem, I've discussed them with Beetstra, but it will take larger community involvement, it's not likely to happen overnight. Unless I push it, with disruptive action.

(And Beetstra is claiming private evidence, which, while troubling, requires that I go privately to ArbComm. It is not a simple, quick matter to get a true community decision on these things.)

I'm not aware of the "issue of content" to which you are referring. The RfC is not raised over edit warring, incivility, or anything other than use of tools while involved. The evidence of edits to the article and to article Talk was presented to show involvement, nothing else (besides specific involvement with a specific editor later blocked). The blacklist addition was a use of tools without respect to the standard process that admins do not directly add sites to the blacklist (normally), and especially they don't do this to pursue a personal agenda. Use of tools while involved creates a suspicion of such agenda, and precedent is clear, as well as policy, that such use of tools is strictly prohibited. And this is serious enough that a two-month lapse of time is moot. The issue will be whether or not there is reason to fear that the violation will be repeated. There is. This RfC may "fail," i.e., produce no consensus or even a sense that Abd is disruptive, should be banned, etc. But then it may go to ArbComm, which is a deliberative body not so easily led astray by irrelevancies. This was my first RfC filing. While I'd love to see it become unnecessary, it may turn into my first ArbComm filing. I'm perfectly aware that if I were to file before ArbComm abusively, if the crowd shouting for my virtual head is right that I'm being disruptive, I could indeed be banned. However, I've been pretty careful, I followed this with minimum disruption, and I think that opinion will be sustained if reviewed.

Debate is always welcome, but there is a risk of appearing not to be listening when people don't agree - it is a perception rather than a reality, I suspect, but perception is all that matters in a community like this.

Dispensing with the conflated issue of content/blacklists, what remains is Guy's behaviour. Most of the edits being discussed above relate to the period prior to the second RfC, ...

No. The edits are presented to show history of involvement, so timing is moot. The RfC is over administrative actions, which took place after RfC 2 and the ArbComm findings. Incivility has continued, but that is irrelevant to the RfC.

the result of which was Guy acknowledging that he had faults, explained his actions, and agreed to calm down about them. What remains is again a perception - that Guy should have let some other admin handle it to avoid any accusation of bias or impropriety. What would be good, I feel, is if Guy were willing to do one of two things in cases where he feels there is an urgent need to do something like this:
  1. Palm it off onto another admin
  2. In case of an emergency, perform the action but immediately get confirmation from AN or some appropriate venue.

Sure. I don't see that the prior RfC was over use of admin tools, though. It was long and I didn't read all of it. In any case, you are detailing what JzG should have done. It's not merely "good," it is required by policy, and the only reason that JzG hasn't already been desysopped over this is that nobody brought it up this way. People complained to him and were blown off, plus editors knew that if they did take it, say, to AN/I, they would be treated as I'm being treated. I can take the heat, and somebody has to, or this would continue. Indeed, what it looks like is that JzG stopped getting mad and started getting even. Instead of swearing at an opponent or calling him a "kook," he blocked him and blacklisted his web site. I'm not sure that the new JzG was actually improved.

Maybe Rothwell deserved to be blocked and maybe the website is useless (though, I'll note, the web site is notable and should have an article, one more detail for me to get to, and Rothwell is an author in the Cold fusion field and is often mentioned in reliable sources). But that doesn't change the fact of policy violation, which damages Wikipedia in some very serious ways.

I don't think Guy has acted improperly in performing these actions, since the community has time and again validated them. I do think he could avoid this kind of process if he followed one of the paths above when dealing in areas that he could be accused of involvement with.

I can understand this position, but it's not correct. Use of tools while involved is not an option, absent emergency. There were no emergencies involved. It appears that you have confused community ratification of the actions (or more often, community inaction with regard to them) as validation. Where I have specifically confronted an action, it has generally been reversed, where some outcome has reached maturity. Most actions, however, have not yet been confronted. The blacklisting issue, from my point of view, is in process, the process of dealing with it started with getting one page whitelisted and stable in an article. Then would come another, etc., then would come local whitelisting of the entire site, then would come the global blacklisting at meta. Dealing with a problem blacklisting, I found, can be impossibly cumbersome, few editors are willing to go the length. I had one major success, so far, with lyrikline.org, that was quite difficult, many requests at meta have been denied, and that job still is not finished, but the door has been opened, I predict it will be done. Little by little, Fritzpoll, we go far.

Finally, the MfD was entirely appropriate. As Abd says, the page was created as an Arbcom evidence page (essentially, I assume, to get around the word limits) and point 10 of the relevant policy indicates that such material cannot be stored within the userspace without the intention of a timely filing of a dispute resolution process. I assume from Guy's comments throughout that MfD that this was essentially the reason. I see no fault with this in particular.

So frustrating, Fritzpoll. (Evidence pages are used, indeed, to avoid cluttering an ArbComm page with what can be pages of data. It's not to "get around" word limits, but to confine what is on the RfAr page to summary of the evidence.) No challenge was mounted to the conclusion of the MfD, and no claim was made that JzG was improper for filing it. It would seem from your comment that you think otherwise. I'd say the MfD was foolish, because it forced the preparation of the RfC, but that's another matter. The evidence page was presented before ArbComm already, and it was prepared on request for that use. Evidence pages normally stay. Note that the MfD did not determine a direct delete, it was an unusual compromise of delete after 30 days if no RfC is filed. So there was nothing to appeal. Then. I could now go to DRV, but it is not necessary for my purposes. Someone concerned about the integrity of ArbComm discussions might. All this discussion of stuff other than the basic issues, on which you agree, confirms the distraction that JzG and other raise.

I have based these comments on the evidence as presented. I am willing to revise them in light of compelling new evidence presented.

Now, your comment is not bad, generally, in terms of effect. It's a bit ironic that those editors have endorsed it, because it confirms practically the whole RfC except for the conclusion which Spartaz picked up on, "Guy did nothing wrong." Using tools when involved is "wrong," unless necessary. The idea that one should go to AN/I merely to prevent giving ammunition to someone with a vendetta is very dangerous. It's a view that the policy is a mere technicality, not important, except to prevent criticism. No, Fritz, the policy is a fundamental one, Wikipedia is lost if it isn't enforced. Similar arguments have been made before, at ArbComm. The sysops lost their tools with much of the community thinking it was an abomination that their friend was desysopped, but had they restrained him, and guided him, it would not have happened. The only reason the action while involved was worthy of the loss of the admin bit, where the action itself wasn't a disaster, was that the admin refused to acknowledge that it was an error, instead blaming the whole thing on other editors with, supposedly, an axe to grind. JzG got into trouble here because he didn't listen to editors who did not have a vendetta against him. I certainly did not, and I really wish he'd wake up and just say, "My bad, I won't do that again!" So simple, so much drama avoided. Administrators who cannot admit that they make mistakes are, unfortunately, dangerous. And then I could go into how some of the actions were actually mistakes and damaging in themselves. But I did not address this. The lists of edits to Cold fusion were not filtered, those are complete lists. If you look at them and see incivility, for example, that's just the way it was. All edits were presented, because the purpose was to show involvement, not to condemn the involvement. The evidence page at the time of the RfAr it was compiled for was just a list of his edits to Cold fusion and Talk:Cold fusion, plus a list of involved admin actions. If that's an "attack page" as it was called, well, the man is being attacked by his own history. Anyway, thanks for the comment, it's useful even as it is. But if you'd like more evidence on some point, I can provide it. --Abd (talk) 03:13, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Abd, I have received this and your e-mail. I am online for a very specific purpose at the moment, but I will attend to your comments in due course. Fritzpoll (talk) 11:57, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, Fritz. When I make long comments, I'm responsible. If I were making some demand, or requesting immediate action, I'd better be succinct! --Abd (talk) 16:05, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Right, I've now considered this and your e-mail, though I shall refrain from directly quoting it as I consider e-mails to me to be private unless otherwise stated - be aware, however, that I have its contents in mind whilst writing this reply.
I am going to do my usual, and attempt to offer you some advice that you have heard before: be succinct. I don't mean when talking to me - in the real world I am far more verbose than you could possibly imagine! Your comments above highlight things I've mentioned in my outside view at the RfC, and you suggest that they are not pertinent to the issue at hand. You say there is no question, for example, that the MfD was proper. In that case, why mention it in the RfC? By tagging on all the backstory and the sideshows that it transpires aren't relevant to the thrust of your criticisms of Guy, you lose your point and, if there are truly groups of editors who would support him no matter what, you make it that much easier for them to pick the RfC apart.
The blacklist issue is what I referred to as a "content" problem, because the blacklisting prevents the use of those sites as sources, and thus removes their ability to be used in content - I apologise if this was unclear. A user conduct RfC is not the right place to rehash the rights and wrongs of the blacklisting, and by and large you have succeeded in avoiding this. I think you could have done more to avoid conflation of the issues, however. Simply pointing to Guy's admin action log, a list of POV edits to show involvement, and that would be it. In fact, no reference to the blacklist was needed to make your point at all, and it lead to the possibility of your detractors picking the evidence apart.
Finally, this is not enough to go to Arbcom. For Arbcom to take action, you really need to present this in a way that shows a long-term problem. Wikipedia has a high churn rate in its regular contributors, and the newer ones need to have everything laid out before them, even just as links/precis from previous RfCs or Arbcom decisions. The mythical status of endorsing editors/admins is of little interest to me (ref: your comment about Durova above): maybe that's just because I'm an unknown and non-influential administrator, and so view everyone in this way :)
But looking at in isolation, as you have presented it, and with all these additional things, it appears to the untrained eye that you're trying to pad the issue out to make it grander than it is, and that what has actually specifically bothered you is the blacklisting. Maybe this is true, maybe it's not.
This RfC will ultimately fail to have the desired effect, and if you approach RfAr in the way you have for this RfC, I think that will fail as well. My advice is to consider the next steps very carefully. As to my comment to respond to compelling new evidence, that still stands, but I can't know what to ask for, so the ball is very much in your court on that one. I wouldn't worry though - few people care what I think on such issues. Fritzpoll (talk) 14:12, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, Fritzpoll. I'm pretty familiar with ArbComm practice on issues of admin involvement, and a single unresolved incident has resulted in desysopping. Where patterns of behavior become relevant is where the admin admits the incident was an error, and the defense is "I haven't done this very often," or "I only did this once or twice." It looks at this point like the affair is likely to end up at ArbComm, and the AC will decide what to do with it. The blacklisting is what originally bothered me. It was utterly inappropriate for JzG to do what he did, on the face; at this point, I had no POV on Cold fusion, but as I investigated it, a whole can of worms appeared. He was not merely involved, he was deeply involved, with a strong POV, expressed over years, and with other questionable admin actions, and what may have been deep damage to the article and the community. He's quite popular, which dictated that the RfC be focused only on the very specific issue of admin abuse, but, I'd say, there are other issues that could be taken to ArbComm, or to RfC before that. I consider the admin abuse problem, which is not in some gray area, it's clearly in violation of policy, to be the most important issue, which is why I focused exclusively on that. There was a reason why the MfD was mentioned; specifically, it shows JzG's reaction to the charges, by that time well-developed, of admin action while involved. I'm quite sure, Fritzpoll, that the flak aimed at me and the attempts to distract from the admin abuse issue would have come with just as much strength if the MfD reference been omitted. I was, here, just pointing out that no claim was made that it was improper, nor to I believe that it was improper, it was his right to file it, no matter how politically foolish it might have been, same with the MfD on the RfC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abd (talk • contribs)
Single incidents have resulted in desysopping, but normally with other mitigating factors - you would do better to reframe this, if you are able to, in the context of any other issues. The problem with mentioning additional materials such as the MfD is that, whilst you say distractions would have occurred anyway, they would carry less force of argument and make it easier to ignore. You seem to think the evidence speaks for itself - I'm telling you it doesn't. We are all on limited time to examine these issues, and you really, really have to be clearer about what the evidence suggests, what outcomes you want from the dispute, etc, etc. The way you have done it would work well in a real life conversation, but the pace of internet traffic means you have to get it right first time, or your point is lost. You can tell you've not done the best job when you're having discussions like the one you're having with me here.  :) Just think about it - maybe get one or two of your supporters to look over an Arbcom filing in advance if it comes to that. If there is an issue, it shouldn't falter because of presentation. I'm happy to discuss this further by e-mail if necessary. Best wishes, Fritzpoll (talk) 11:06, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll do that (email). I should say that the draft RfC was reviewed by editors who can be quite concise. The RfC asks three very simple questions; the rest, to which most editors are responding, isn't in the RfC, it's assumed. I can assure you that there would be even broader consultation before filing an RfAr. I would not dare do anything like this alone. Thanks. --Abd (talk) 17:57, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

001 Action/ Rpg Maker

That sounds great, I cannot thank you enough for your time.

  • First of all, i would just like to clarify that i am counted as a third party. I am a member of the forums and have payed money to the developer of the software, but have not contributed to the software or had a hand in the development of it. Would this count as Bias?

Sources

001 Action/ Rpg Maker is hosted on the following software sites: [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] as well as many others.

On Download.cnet.com it is the "Most popular Game Development download" (see previous link)

[11] 4th most popular download on techrepublic for game utilities and editors

It was included in a popular computer magazine 'Think Digit' [12]

Although a copy of the magazine entry in question could not be found as these magazines do not keep hard copies of the magazines online, proof that it was included in a disk of notable free software can be found here: [13]

This is a list of the magazines contents for March 2009, Engien001 was included in the complementory disk that came with the magazine.

Yawn... Thats all i can come up with tonight, will add more later.

Thanks again. Evergreen481 (talk) 10:33, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Right, the download sites are not reliable sources. I could write some software, and upload it there - wouldn't make it notable. Nor would the fact that it had been on a magazine cover disk. When you say it was "included" in the magazine, was there an article about it? What you're after are articles, magazines, e-zines, etc. that talk about this software. Then you can source an article properly, and the fact that other significant publications talk about it would be enough to establish its worthiness for an article. Fritzpoll (talk) 10:47, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Bob Woodward Query

This is Bob Woodward of The Washington Post. I asked my assistant Evelyn Duffy (known as Maggie3027 to Wikipedia) to add substantial material to my Wikipedia entry. She submitted this with some 86 footnotes providing documentation and source material. User Morethan3words has rejected it; this editor has some good points and I am all for putting in as much criticism as there might be. My concerns are twofold. First, the current entry is pretty thin and does not have a serious summary of my career. Second, if you read Morethan3words statement rejecting the entry found on Maggie3027/sandbox, you will see that this individual has some strong opinions and conclusions about the Watergate scandal. For example, that the movie version of All the President's Men "does not hold up to the facts." For 33 years there has been much discussion about this movie but I have not really heard this criticism or conclusion. This individual states flatly that the Washington Post's reporting "did not substantially contribute to the chain of events that lead to Nixon's resignation." There are volumes on the record to dispute this. It seems unnecessary to have an argument about Watergate, but this individual has reached some sweeping, incorrect or certainly debatable conclusions. I agree with this person that my assistant has some COI and POV issues. That is why she was up front about disclosing her role. But there should be some way to put in a longer, richer, more detailed biography. One that includes all of the criticism (Evelyn added much new criticism that is not in the current entry). I get almost daily inquiries from people, students, writers. I would like to have a comprehensive, accurate biography to which I can refer them. Pile on the criticism, but let's have something that explains what the books and journalism are about. This should be relatively easy to fix. Neither Evelyn nor I should have a final say. But she has supplied documented facts, which is what all this should be about. Thanks for listening, Bob Woodward

Hi Bob. There are a couple of ways through here. One of those is to try to hack it out with Evelyn, and the other is for us to take your citations and write an article ourselves, partly from scratch, partly using the existing material. I've not spoken with Morethan3words about this as yet, and I will now go and have a look at what is going on in this regard. I think the problem is that Mt3w is examining the potential POV/COI issues carefully - we appreciate the sources, but our discussion of them needs to be extremely neutral and dispassionate, and I am doubtful that this can be achieved by one or two people alone in this specific instance. Let me have a look, and you can get back to me here. Fritzpoll (talk) 16:23, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Aitias

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Aitias/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Aitias/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, [[Sam Korn]] (smoddy) 22:12, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Example of one of the many articles I wanted User:EnigmaBot to fix

Ifeanyi_Ohalete. See place of birth in the infobox. Enigmamsg 00:51, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

List of highest grossing Tamil-language films

Hello!!

If you remember, you deleted the "List of top Bollywood films" article as a result of this AfD, but you forgot to delete List of highest grossing Tamil-language films, which is the same just for Tamil films, and was also mentioned at the AfD. Someone, at the time of the AfD, just moved its name from top Tamil film to this name probably to avoid its deletion, while it's structured in the same way(it was originally copied). Actually it's worse than the article about the Bollywood films, because it's completely unsourced, much POV.

I therefore ask you to delete this article as well. After this a new article will be created in this structure. Shahid • Talk2me 07:57, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Can you not just edit the article to replace it with the new structure? Fritzpoll (talk) 09:48, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
There's a problem. While there are two leading sources for Hindi box office earnings, there isn't any source for Tamil box office earnings and collections. The info on this page is essentially POV of the editors (who are primarily anonymous IPs). Besides that, it is just a version of the "List of top Bollywood films" page, which is deleted. This page was part of the deal, and all the things discussed at AfD applies to this one as well, thus it should have been deleted as well from the beginning. Replacing this page with gross collections is impossible for several reasons. First, it will sure be reverted by different anons who have worked hard to add their OR; secondly, as mentioned above, no reliable sources concerning box office receipts of Tamil films are available.
The only way to go is deleting the article, frankly speaking, getting rid of any traces of its existence, and then giving editors the opportunity to start an article in the format of List of highest-grossing Bollywood films. This one has to be deleted, that's for sure. Shahid • Talk2me 21:18, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
This article was not directly discussed in this AfD, and I am therefore uncomfortable deleting it for the sake of convenience. Please ask User:MBisanz to evaluate this AfD and help decide on this issue. Fritzpoll (talk) 21:28, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


Hello, Can you explain why my page for nozio was deleted when a similar page exists that has hardly any content or references and in my mind is clearly an advertisement for the company? for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hotels.com Travelbrit (talk) 16:36, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Can you reference me a specific page, please? Fritzpoll (talk) 17:32, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

yes this page was deleted http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nozio though other pages exist (like the one above) which are clearly against the guidelines that have been pointed out to me namely lack of references, lack of quality unbiased content clearly advertising in my mind. Travelbrit (talk) 21:00, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS-kind of argument - I'm not allowed, by and large, to delete things willy-nilly on Wikipedia. If you think the other artices are promotional, you are free to nominate them for deletion by WP:PROD or WP:AFD. I imagine you would be proposing them for deletion per a lack of notability with an element of promotion. Up to you though. Fritzpoll (talk) 06:59, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Rollback request

Hi, I found on this page that you are willing to give rollback right? I seem to remember having seen your name on an AFD or something so that's why I'm asking you directly. The reason I wish to apply for rollback is that I've been doing a lot of cleanup and have dealt with vandalism a lot in the past few months, and having the rollback function could make thing easier in some instances. Is there any procedure to follow to be granted this right? Do I need to provide some proof that I need it? Please let me know. Thanks, Laurent (talk) 13:45, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Thunder 1000000

Now with a google search , thunder 1000000 still comes up second, but in my user namespace. So ha! Daniel Christensen (talk) 18:39, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not entirely certain what your obsession with mentioning this article on my talkpage is. I shall have to check that this page complies with policy now that you have pointed it out though Fritzpoll (talk) 18:41, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Sure this isn't the only time

What stops any user subpage or non main-namespace article from coming up in a Google search or any other search engine? Big question: How do those links get created in the first place? Are they automatic or is that what you do when you work for Google? Daniel Christensen (talk) 18:56, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Re
checking it out: Yes, God forbid the article is improper for the 5 people a day who view it. When at worst it is an eclectic collection of info from multiple sites. Daniel Christensen (talk) 18:58, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, Wikipedia isn't your personal web host - this is what admins are meant to do. As to your other question, I point you to Robots exclusion standard. Why do you keep coming here to my page to talk about this article, as though I would have a particular investment in it's existence or lack thereof? Fritzpoll (talk) 19:00, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

jzg rfc

Hi, Could you refactor your comment as I'm pretty sure it doesn't apply to me (first comment, and I don't have a habit of jumping on people, even Abd, or defending jzg - who I barely know), and hence its sweeping nature is unfair and inaccurate. Also, Abd already responded. I approve of the post you've made on his talk page, however. Thanks, Verbal chat 13:23, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Let me quickly have a look - from memory, I don't believe I was referring to you, but I will clarify this per your request Fritzpoll (talk) 14:05, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps an unusual review requested

Hi boss. As you probably don't remember, next month, I will have been an administrator for around a year. You opposed me during the course of my RfA, and now I have come to exact my revenge, Bwuhahahaha! I was rather hoping you might pass comment on how you think I'm doing. This probably sounds rather indulgent, but it's like a very focussed Editor Review, trying to work out if I've allayed fears etc. and I'll be asking a few other people for this opinion as well.

I'm rather hopeful of a positive reply, admittedly, but I will take negatives into account - severe enough, and I'll hand in my tools! In admin terms, I've been involved in a little DR here and there, and in the domain of deletions so that should provide some interesting material for you! Hope you can help. Best wishes, Fritzpoll (talk) 16:09, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Is there some page where this is operating? Stifle (talk) 20:00, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Nope - it isn't a formal process. If you want me to subpage it in my userspace for whatever reason, that's fine - I suggest User:Fritzpoll/Review. Fritzpoll (talk) 20:47, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I'll have a look. But it won't be immediate. Stifle (talk) 08:30, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Immediacy isn't an issue - take your time. I'm happy enough that you're willing to do it at all Fritzpoll (talk) 08:37, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/North Korean websites banned in South Korea (2nd nomination)

moved from user talk:ikip:

Closed this as keep - can you make the move that you suggested in the AfD? I'd do it, but am reluctant when I can't follow through on the cleanup Fritzpoll (talk) 10:19, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

thanks for closing it keep, I moved the article, added new sections, and a short one sentence intro. I appreciate your efforts! Have a great weekend! Ikip (talk) 11:11, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
You too, Ikip Fritzpoll (talk) 11:12, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Engine001

Hey I just wanted to thank you for your help, but at this stage i don't believe i can find the required amount or quality of sources for the page. Ill try again when the community has gained more popularity. Thanks. Evergreen481 (talk) 23:40, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar
The "What a Brilliant Idea!" Barnstar should be awarded to a user who figures out an elegant solution to a particularly burdensome bottleneck or problem, or who identifies a means to improve Wikipedia in a profound way.

This barnstar is awarded to User:Fritzpoll for accomplishing, with his diplomacy and intellegence, what dozens, even hundreds, of editors were unable to do before: change wikipedia policy for the better, making wikipedia a more welcome place for new editors, by increasing the Article for Deletion time from 5 days to 7 days. On behalf of all editors who fight to save worthy articles, and for all new editors, today and throughout all time, thank you. Ikip (talk) 06:55, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

That's very nice - thank you, Ikip. :) Fritzpoll (talk) 07:00, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Wow! I didn't notice this. A seven-day cycle is more likely to allow editors who have a weekly editing time to notice an AfD. Yes, very good work. My opinion is that, generally, while the community can and should make ad-hoc decisions in shorter timespans than a week, discussions should probably remain open for a week if there is any lasting effect. It might avoid some DRVs in this case, but I'm thinking more of blocks and bans. --Abd (talk) 17:06, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Please restore User talk:JedRothwell

This was deleted by a bot that no longer operates, and is actually relevant to ongoing dispute, so please restore it. Thanks. --Abd (talk) 17:12, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Reviewing.... Fritzpoll (talk) 21:29, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
I think I'd need a more compelling reason to undelete it than that the bot no longer operates, with specifics. If you are in dispute with someone, then I'd need details of that as well. I don't think you need involve me at this stage - might I suggest contacting User:KillerChihuahua who appears to have originally deleted it? Fritzpoll (talk) 22:01, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
No. The issue is the Talk page, not the user page, and the deletion in question is not the original deletion. There is a dispute over an alleged ban of this editor. Brief history, see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/JzG 3:
  • JzG was in long-term dispute with Jed Rothwell.
  • In 2006, JedRothwell, same editor, requested his Talk page be deleted. That was done by KC.
  • Some time later the page was created again, by unknown editor.
  • JzG blocked IP editor signing as Jed Rothwell.
  • JzG declared editor banned through notice to Talk:Cold fusion.
  • JzG was challenged over the ban.
  • JzG, bypassing normal DR procedure, went to ArbComm, referenced in RfC, to get confirmation of ban.
  • ArbComm rejected request as premature (a position I fully supported; indeed, that was the outcome I wanted).
  • During the discussion, it was noted that there wasn't any block of the editor's registered account, which had not been used since 2006, when the editor also stopped making article edits and confined himself to Talk page comments, only to Talk:Cold fusion, and a few editor talk pages, which is exactly what policy would require, he has a conflict of interest, being a known expert in the field. MastCell obliged, with a note suggesting that if JzG needs a block and is involved, that he just ask.
  • When MastCell blocked, I suspect, he placed the tag that would lead eventually to bot removal of the Talk page.
  • New, nondisruptive edits by Jed Rothwell (he signs them with his name) are being removed as by a banned editor. That's not actually a problem, because, normally, any editor can bring them back in if the editor is willing to take responsibility for them: bans don't censor content or discussion, but prevent a banned editor from independently asserting content or discussion. Nevertheless, edit warring developed over this at Talk:Cold fusion.
  • What happened on the JedRothwell Talk page may possibly be relevant to an RfAr arising out of the RfC. The deletion of a Talk page like this is unusual, in fact, particularly when there has been recent controversy over the editor, as there was in the RfAr from JzG. Hence the request. Thanks. --Abd (talk) 04:10, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Given that no such RfAr exists, that Arbcom are perfectly capable of viewing the deleted material, and that you've not apparently asked the deleting administrator first, I'm afraid I'm going to have to once again punt you towards them for now. Best wishes, Fritzpoll (talk) 08:38, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
The RfAr is the one planned to be filed due to the failure of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/JzG 3 to resolve the issue of administrative recusal. Sure, any arb can view the page, but I can't, so I don't know if it's relevant to be presented, or not, and thus not to waste their time if it is moot, but it is definitely relevant to the current dispute over the alleged ban of the editor, a dispute which led to Talk page edit warring over the last two days or so at Talk:Cold fusion, even if it isn't relevant to the coming RfAr. Never mind, then, I can see that you don't have a taste for this undeletion, I'll either ask another admin or go to WP:DRV. For my purposes, an email copy of the wikitext would be fine. Thanks for considering it. --Abd (talk) 16:30, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Oh, one more point. There was no "deleting administrator," there was a bot deletion; the bot no longer operates, but, sure, I can ask the bot admin to undelete. I could ask MastCell to undelete as well, since he probably placed the tag that led to deletion, if I'm correct. But I can't tell that, since I can't see the article. No, I think I'll ask for an emailed copy, DRV would be unnecessarily disruptive. I don't really care if the page is undeleted or not, I just need to read it at this point. If it becomes relevant enough that other editors should be able to see it, I'll then go to DRV or whatever minimal action gets the job done. I expected it to be quick here, that's why I asked. It wasn't, so, my mistake. Sorry. --Abd (talk) 16:35, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Never mind. I just realized that wikitext isn't enough, I need history, so I'll be asking for undeletion or userification. Thanks again. --Abd (talk) 16:39, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
If you want undeletion, that's fine - but it is best to ask the bot operator first. I'll consider your request again overnight Fritzpoll (talk) 20:58, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
No rush. Tell you what. I'll ask the bot operator, and then let you know what happened. --Abd (talk) 21:25, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Please do - this is, I'm sure you appreciate, a different request to standard userfication of material from article space. Fritzpoll (talk) 21:27, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
  1. ^ "Districts of Vietnam". Statoids. Retrieved March 13, 2009.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Fritzpoll/Archive_4&oldid=1088352080"