User talk:Fritzpoll: Difference between revisions

Archives

/Archive 1 /Archive 2 /Archive 3 /Archive 4 /Archive 5 /Archive 6 /Archive 7

This page has archives. Sections older than 5 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

4 July 2024
News and notes: WMF board elections and fundraising updates Special report: Wikimedia Movement Charter ratification vote underway, new Council may surpass power of Board In focus: How the Russian Wikipedia keeps it clean despite having just a couple dozen administrators Discussion report: Wikipedians are hung up on the meaning of Madonna In the media: War and information in war and politics Sister projects: On editing Wikisource Obituary: Hanif Al Husaini, Salazarov, Hyacinth, and PirjanovNurlan Opinion: Etika: a Pop Culture Champion Gallery: Spokane Willy's photos Op-Ed: Why you should not vote in the 2024 WMF BoT elections Crossword: On a day of independence, beat crosswords into crossploughshares Humour: A joke Cobwebs: Counting to a billion — manuscripts don't burn Recent research: Is Wikipedia Politically Biased? Perhaps Traffic report: Talking about you and me, and the games people play
Single page Front page About Subscribe Suggestions Archives

23prootie (talk) has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

An editor has asked for a deletion review of New Zealand – Pakistan relations. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Latvia–Luxembourg relations. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Azerbaijan–Spain relations. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.

19-June-09: I see that you deleted the disambiguation page "Designated", so I have assigned that title as a redirection page, instead. I did not continue discussion, once I realized that the AfD-page (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Designated) was violating WP policies, especially by using WP:Wikilawyering to deny the use of the word "designated" with multiple meanings. I really just wanted to see if anyone else could detect the tactics of "gaming the system" (WP:GAMING) and the use of WP:Sockpuppets in the "votes" to delete that page. I know you must be busy, but I'm afraid you've been played for a fool, and conned into believing that, somehow, several independent people, quickly, wanted that page gone. In fact, several hundred people a day (hence, hundreds of independent users) had been requesting the page "Designated" for the content it provided. Again, I'm sorry those guys fooled you. Perhaps, always check the edit-history of the last few people to vote for delete: did they edit any other articles during the past 6 months? -Wikid77 (talk) 03:38, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you have specific accusations to make, make them and back them up with diffs per WP:CIVIL - I am not going to go on a fishing expedition for you. I close AfDs based on arguments since it isn't a vote - your arguments for retention did not answer the reasonable concerns of those proposing deletion, so the number and nature of the comments is not as relevant as you may think. In fact several of your arguments, including the one here about page views, are among our arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. So, to repeat: if you have a specific accusation to make, make it, but I will not spend my free time investigating without a good reason. Fritzpoll (talk) 07:20, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• More below: #Unusual comments should delay AfD consensus. -Wikid77 (talk) 12:58, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Is there anything can be done to restore the SWARL (Short Wave Amateur Radio Listening) article? It's not quite cleat to me why that was speedy deleted? Of course I read the discussion about it but the final decision looks to me too quick. I would rather give some notices on the content and let the author fix it. I feel like I have to explain the situation around SWARL: There was a SWARL Yahoo group and the informational website that comes up at first if you make search for SWARL in google. Both of those have been created by Steve Carter who passed it on to the crew with Marshall Cubitt (I'm member of this crew - Yury Bondarenko, you can see the full list of the crew at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SWARL/ and the URL of our site there too, which is http://swarl.org) SWARL Yahoo group is one of the largest groups on this topic, and the site swarl.org contains supporting information (read: club information) According to Steve Carter, he does not have access to the old site of SWARL and he tried to convince hoster of it to remove content of it, but with no success. So, SWARL has desided to start a new site http://swarl.org , it is very new site and there are not many links to it yet, but we are working on links corrections. The article about SWARL on Wikipedia was containing the most important info about our club and we would really like to restore it. If we need to correct our article in any way, please inform me. I could see there is an article about ARRL and our club is no lesser importance to SWLs in the world as ARRL to American HAMs. There are only three organizations left in the world that issue international SWL call signs and keep track of them. We have got 794 SWL call signs issued and this number increases every day. There is a big interest in SWLing among people who has receiver. Well I hope I didnt take too much of your time by this explanation and really hope to get our article on Wikipedia back. Brack11 (talk) 20:24, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have to have a look - I can't remember deleting this article. I'll get back to you shortly Fritzpoll (talk) 20:27, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any news on my issue? Brack11 (talk) 07:57, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The record shows you closed the {{afd}} for Gregory McMillion.

The nominator failed to comply with the recommendations in the deletion policies that nominators show good faith by informing the individual who uploaded or created the article.

Since I didn't have a chance to defend the article at its {{afd}}, or to make changes to address the concerns raised there, I would appreciate it if you could userify it to User:Geo Swan/review/Gregory McMillion. I'd like to request its full revision history and its talk page too please.

Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 03:05, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is actually one where I'm going to sleep on it and get back to you - this is a one-time BLP, and I'm a little concerned about it existing in userspace for scraping and indexing by external users of our content. Fritzpoll (talk) 13:03, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For all I know, this may be an instance where those voicing an opinion in the {{afd}} were correct, and there is a lesson for me.

But if there was a potentional lesson for me, it was not available for me during the {{afd}} because the nominator didn't see fit to comply with the recommenations of the deletion policy, and leave me that crucial heads-up. Good faith contributors should be open to learning from their mistakes, and saving everyone's time, by not making them additional times.

I think this is a strong argument for asking for userification.

Can you let me know when you have finished considering this matter? Geo Swan (talk) 19:32, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The guidelines on undeletion recommend that the person interested in userification or full restoration should first approach the closing administrator with some civil questions. I hope you will agree that I have fulfilled my obligations.

You said you would have to sleep on this question. It has been a couple of days now. Should I assume, if I don't hear back from you by this time tomorrow, that you have slept on it, and made up your mind, and that I will have to make a formal request for userification at DRV? Geo Swan (talk) 22:17, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will not repeat the alterations to the citations and I respect it when I am reverted. However I thought I did the right thing. Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 20:13, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your comments and actions in this regard. Fritzpoll (talk) 20:14, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, however I would like to point you to this [1]. Just so that we don't have double standards. We can't remove sentences that are adequately backed up. If a Google News query is good backing up, a UN document deserves more, right? Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 21:06, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not when the assertion it supports is flat-out wrong. We have to have some standards of factual accuracy around here, after all. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:41, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:AE#SQRT5P1D2 and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Request for clarification: SQRT5P1D2. You may have a view on this situation. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:31, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In detemining an actual consensus, consider if the comments are neutral, or somehow, unbalanced to try to mislead other people's opinions. If comments are not genuine, then the whole process is likely highly distorted. Why? ...because where there's smoke there's fire: even one misleading comment opens the door to a possible firestorm of confusion and incorrect opinions. For that reason, if an AfD discussion involves suspicious opinions, then perhaps, the entire discussion has been slanted (in other ways not easily seen). I did not identify problems earlier, just to see if anyone else noticed, and to see if Wikipedia would delete an article that was attacked by suspicious opinions. I did not mean to be intentionally vague, nor suggest an unending fishing expedition.

Specifically, there are unlikely "random" opinions: consider the 13-days of contributions of a new user, now inactive for 10 days: Special:Contributions/Martin_Raybourne.
See his opinion at end of: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Designated. This issue is not a priority; I work on thousands of articles, and I don't wish anyone to get upset about one page. I merely note:

• a page can be deleted when a new user recommends "delete" and does nothing else for the next 10 days.
• there is not a "14-day waiting period" after opinions are stated, to see what people do next.

I would recommend checking for hints (smoke) of unbalanced activity, and then consider the possibility that the consensus is being slanted in a unseen fire of inaccurate opinions. I am not blaming anyone for this situation, I merely note that there are such problems with Wikipedia's current policies about consensus.
Starting a "witchhunt" now could cause many problems: long-term users are involved. Instead, just realize that unbalanced opinions were listed, and try to be more aware when checking the next AfD. I suggest putting an AfD on hold, when new users start adding "random" opinions, without starting a witchhunt, and just declare that the matter requires "more time" to be re-opened for other users' opinions. There would be no automatic witchhunt for puppets or canvassing, but also no instant deletes, using the easy-excuse that more opinions were needed. Hence, just delay a suspicious AfD. -Wikid77 (talk) 12:58, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Raybourne's comments were discounted in evaluating consensus because they added nothing to the discussion, so I wouldn't worry too much about that. I think it is assuming too much bad faith in our other contributors who make reasoned and independent arguments that "one bad apple spoils a bunch". We will discard opinions as necessary, and do - in this AfD, your views were out of synch with the community so you "lost" the argument. Our procedures here handle these scenarios fine as it is, one way or the other, and there is a very limited notion of suffrage. Consequently I see no need to adopt your suggestion except in the most extreme of cases where this is the default action anyway. This AfD was not one of these cases Fritzpoll (talk) 13:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't weigh various opinions: It's not a good idea to weigh one person's views against a "community" of puppets and canvassing. In the 1930s, there was the infamous document "One Hundred Scientists Against Einstein" (I'll write it from better sources: [2]), and he responded, "If I were wrong, one would have been enough". Wikipedia's policies have been a mish-mash of confusion, leading to the notion of consensus as being the majority view, rather than a mutual agreement that all could abide: "How can we edit the page to avoid deletion?". Why do sockpuppets chime-in on the AfD pages? ...because they work to cause deletes. You are not the only one who is struggling with the untenable notion of consensus as going "against the majority" - because AfDs should be decided on the validity of the issues: "Does the page disambiguate 2 titles, such as song "Designated" from the page "Designated (landmarks)"? If so, then it is valid, regardless of how many vote to delete. Also, consider if it is likely to support more disambiguations, such as book title "Designated" and film title "Designated" in the future. In short, Wikipedia's policies are convoluted, giving the appearance of a majority consensus (but not voting, you see), while obscuring the simple validity of the issues. The result: a consensus could go "against the majority" and really give full meaning to the term wiki-spastic. Wikipedia's policies are warping people's minds, but few realize what is happening. Anyway, thanks for taking the time to consider these issues. -Wikid77 (talk) 04:46, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm afraid that I'm not getting through to you, so let me spell it out:
    • AfD is not a vote - you can drop all notion of majorities. I don't even bother counting up the bolded !votes.
    • I did not close this as a vote
    • I weighed the arguments in accordance with policy and guidelines as I am meant to
    • People voting delete without cause, or with spurious/weak reasoning are and were discounted
    • The same applies to those who have weak arguments for retention
    • Your arguments fell into the latter category relative to those few individuals with a good, policy-based reason to delete
    • Thus the article is deleted, irrespective of the pointless and irrelevant comments by those you are accusing of sockpuppetry - they may have been there, but they may as well not have commented. One good argument can eliminate ten bad ones in opposition - that is the very definition of consensus on Wikipedia.
  • If you have specific accusations to make, make them with actual evidence, ideally at WP:SPI - making repeated unjustified accusations is a violation of our civility policy, and I will have no hesitation in enforcing it. I might also add on a personal note, that you are adopting an exceedingly patronising tone towards me, which is neither necessary nor appreciated. Fritzpoll (talk) 08:30, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re. this, I have merged the material to Mayu Sakai. You said you wanted to do something to preserve attribution. --Apoc2400 (talk) 13:46, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - you'll notice that your user sub-page has gone. I merged it back underneath the redirect on the mainspace page, albeit clumsily! Fritzpoll (talk) 13:53, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have undone this merge. A biography is NOT the place for that material, and per consensus and previous discussion the only thing that needed "merging" was the series name and release dates which was done long ago. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:59, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll leave this content decision to you two. Fritzpoll (talk) 14:02, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a content decision. The AfD closed as delete, not merge. There was nothing to merge and the merge shouldn't have been redone yet again, in blatant violation of the AfD consensus to delete. The deletion was not overturned in a DRV or through any other valid means. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:29, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD is about the article, not the content. Anyway, we are discussing it at Talk:Mayu_Sakai#Merged. --Apoc2400 (talk) 14:56, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is total bull. By that reasoning, ever article deleted in AfD can just be copy/pasted somewhere else because the "article" was what was deleted, not the content. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:59, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just recreating under a new name is not ok of curse. It is perfectly normal for an article about a notable topic to include information about sub-topics that are not notable enough for their own articles on Wikipedia. --Apoc2400 (talk) 15:06, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I remember how it closed :) I responded to a request to allow some of the material to be merged - I userfied the article for a reference for the editor wanting to add content on this topic. You are correct that the AfD closed to delete, but that, as always, only refers to the consensus not to have a standalone article on a topic. Unfortunately, the community won't approve turning AfD into a non-uniquely deletion discussion, so the merging issue is a bit vague - in this case I thought I would leave the content decision over to other editors, and assist only in providing the deleted material for reference. Beyond that, I cannor help. Fritzpoll (talk) 15:23, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Fritzpoll. While I don't agree with Collectonian's reasoning, it looks like most on the talk page do not want the material merged, so I am leaving it for now. --Apoc2400 (talk) 15:41, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am talking about myself in the Macedonia discussion. I try to keep a low tone and when one issue is rest (like the one about a few edits I made about citation styles that were reverted and I never edit warred about them), another one is raised against me. The latest one was that I am "Swamping the case pages with nonsensical proposals". I don't focus at the incivil implications of the word "nonsensical", someone may judge them to be nonsense, or "bulshit" (a word used about another user's arguments). However sustained attacks on my good faith without a reason (I thought having many proposals were the objective, not something to be avoided) is not something I can accept. Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 14:20, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How many attacks can one account sustain?

I'd say roughly 763? Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 19:08, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe :) make that 764 with this[3] semi-accusation of canvassing. Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 17:20, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've suggested a way to reduce the amount of clutter that we're likely to have in the envisaged public RfC. Please see Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion/Macedonia#Winnowing proposals - grateful for comments. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:05, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LOL why is it Fritz that you seem to attract people in droves who are more interested in policies and proposals rather than on specific article content? Hehe. Why is it nobody visits your talk page for a "normal" not arb like conversation!! Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 19:14, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I've been spending too long over in those realms. Did I tell you about my plan for my first new article? Fritzpoll (talk) 19:47, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. What is it? Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 20:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It may sound dull, but our local political machinations have inspired me to write the article Electoral reform in the United Kingdom - I already have loads of sources for our attempts at voting reform, but just need some info on the wider reforms that we have already made. Whaddya think?

Surprised we don't have an article on it. I guess its one of the general topics which are of high encyclopedic value that are missing from the project. If we think generally rather than specificially we could be providing an overview on a huge number of topics. I studied a bit of electoral reform for A level particularly the period 1829-1848. I'm sure a mass could be written about it so go for it! Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 22:50, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fritzpoll. I think that some of the users who showed interest in the discussion here should be notified of the winnowing proposals section, in case they have not noticed it. Cheers, BalkanFever 12:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By all means post a neutral notification on all of their talkpages Fritzpoll (talk) 12:50, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I basically copied the text from your notification :) BalkanFever 13:05, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then I can hardly fault it! :) Thanks Fritzpoll (talk) 13:10, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You said you'll get back to me shortly but I still waiting for an answer

Brack11 (talk) 12:34, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Everso sorry - I've been busy on here and in the real world and have missed some messages in the rush. The article was not speedy deleted - it was deleted following a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swarl, the consensus of which was that the subject was not the subject of multiple, non-trivial, independent reliable sources, and so did not meet any of our guidelines for inclusion. If I can help in any way by reviewing sources that you feel meet the definitions in the linked guidelines, please let me know Fritzpoll (talk) 14:38, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fritzpoll, what do you think? [4] Should Odin5000's rant be allowed to stand? His contributions are very suspicious - this looks like a sleeper sockpuppet account, probably of one of the numerous editors who have been blocked for disruption in this topic area (possibly one of those banned by the ArbCom?). -- ChrisO (talk) 16:07, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I may offer my 2 cents here, I too think that Odin5000's edits and creation of new proposals is out of line. I agree with your reversions. The only thing that should be allowed to stay is his endorsement of an existing proposal under international organizations. It probably won't count much since he doesn't cite wikipedia policy, but we can't keep him from having it there. --Radjenef (talk) 16:16, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I don't mind too much having it there either, if it's decided that he's acting in good faith rather than as someone's sockpuppet. His rant is quite a good disincentive to anyone inclined to support his favourite options. -- ChrisO (talk) 16:19, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather rants were removed from endorsement sections if they aren't making endorsements - perhaps the talkpage would be best? Fritzpoll (talk) 17:08, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the issue's moot now that J.delanoy has topic-banned Odin5000 as a disruptive SPA. The rants were mostly endorsements, actually, but given their disruptive nature and Odin5000's contributions history he clearly wasn't acting in the spirit that this discussion is supposed to be adopting. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:25, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I spoke too soon. See WP:AN/I#Ban J.delanoy for Vote Rigging. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:27, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since you are involved in the discussion concerning the removal of Proposal G, I am informing you of the request for clarification I have put forth [5]. I am only doing this because I believe that the greater community should have a chance of seeing and evaluating the proposal by itself. I highly regard all of the effort that you have put in this discussion, so far, and wish to thank you for it. --Radjenef (talk) 17:40, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]