I have only looked at a few, but the ones I looked at were all offcentered. The highlighted route should be centered in the map. Also a few, didn't need to be replaced, SR 64 and SR 67 were just made and work fine and I have reverted back to the previous versions. --Holderca1talk16:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't care one way or the other on the format, but the older versions of SR 64 and SR 67 show Grand Canyon National Park, which both provide access to and is an essential part of the map. The newer maps were all also way offcentered. --Holderca1talk16:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Hi, I have seen the various maps that you have been uploading for AZ state routes. Thanks for the effort! While I was looking I did notice that most of them are not centered, and was wondering if you might be able to recenter them. Also, the new maps have lost some of the information such as Grand Canyon National Park, and major rivers. It'd be great if you could put that lost information into the updated maps. Thanks!" Arkyan16:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure I understand your reply here. Who are you quoting? Are you working on fixing the centering or are you just leaving them as is? --Holderca1talk20:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was being snarky. You know, as in, "here's a more diplomatic way you could have brought up the topic". I had been having a bad morning and had just finished the batch of maps (which required a decent amount of work) and as a result your comment came off sounding critical and unappreciative. Doubt that was your intent but that was how it came across. I'm sure you can understand the desire to feel that your hard work is at least appreciated when it's being critiqued. In any case, yes I am redoing them. Arkyan21:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize if I came across that way. I suppose I just like to get to the point. The maps are definitely appreciated as I have been requesting them five at a time on the map request page. I have no idea what it takes to put these maps together. --Holderca1talk21:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be something wrong with this image. The pointer is off to some other county but not the one it's supposed to be at;-) --X-Weinzar (talk) 16:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
already archived but not answered yet. Could you please take a look at that? Thx! --X-Weinzar (talk) 01:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still a little confused. The arrow is pointing at the highlighted county (Montrose), and there isn't anything highlighted in the circle. Arkyan14:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind. When working on de:Littleton (Colorado) I got the impression that your maps are supposed to highlight the town again in the state map. So do you see the county borders in the highlighted circe that resemble a pin? Now I finally realized that this is just the way the county borders are laid out. Sorry, my bad. I should have taken a look at a few more maps first. Wouldn't such a pointer be a nice feature for your next maps? ;-) --X-Weinzar (talk) 14:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've noticed your nice county maps from Arizona and would like to help out. I am interested in working on Texas, and have made maps currently for the southern 9 counties in Texas. For reference, see Brownsville, Texas. I have created these starting in ArcGIS using the newly updated 2007 TIGER shapefiles, then exporting as an svg into Inkscape to add the state map in the upper right hand corner. This is definitely the slow way, but it's the quickest I can do attm, and without the use of a bot. Let me know if you're interested and any suggestions. Thanks! 25or6to4 (talk) 22:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I made a large batch of maps that were not uploaded when my bot went offline due to technical difficulties. I may still have some of the Texas ones archived, but they would not be based on 2007 data. All of the data I had available to me was from the 2000 census. If you're interested in these files (and if I still have them) you would be welcome to them. Arkyan19:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'm going to keep hacking away at them here. I almost have ArcGIS set up to automate the image creation here, so it's possible I may be able to zip through them soon. I'll keep you informed. Thanks for the offer! 25or6to4 (talk) 15:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Although you opposed me in my recent RFA I will still say thanks as from your comments and the other users comments that opposed me I have made a todo list for before my next RFA. I hope I will have resolved all of the issues before then and I hope that you would be able to support me in the future. If you would like to reply to this message or have any more suggestions for me then please message me on my talk page as I will not be checking back here. Thanks again. ·Add§hore·Talk/Cont16:22, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the heads up. I'll see if I can find the archived (correct) version, otherwise I'll re-do it and have it uploaded shortly. Arkyan15:12, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Chomsky reference is certainly a fairly solid argument, I can agree with that - however, it failed to convince many of those who voiced their opinion at the discussion, and not persuasive enough for me to simply dismiss the discussion as the whole. If you still feel I made a bad call feel free to bring it up at DRV, although it might be more productive if you (or another interested editor) were to start the article anew with more solid sourcing. Arkyan23:36, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi; I like the LDS temple map you updated. However, may I point out that the Curitiba Brazil Temple is colored blue on the map, whereas it should be red since it was dedicated on 1 June 2008. I wasn't sure if I had the skills to fix it. Thanks. Good Ol’factory(talk)05:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for bringing that to my attention. The map has been updated to reflect the dedication of the Curitiba temple. Arkyan15:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You have merged the article but you haven't deleted the original one. Just reminding you it still needs to be done. Harry the Dog WOOF20:38, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An article cannot be deleted after parts of it have been merged - the history is required in order to maintain GFDL licensing compliance. Shereth21:04, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! I saw you just deleted the article "What's Up, What's Happening", of which I was the nominator. However, just before the deletion of the page someone added a reliable source from Rolling Stone's website, in which T.I. explicitly says that it was to be "the next single". I had also made some adjustments to the page, but I had forgot about the deletion nom. (thanks to the vandal that removed the template!) Since I'm sure it will be soon re-created, could we just restore the article since it would pass WP:RS? Just asking. Do U(knome)?yes...|or no ·15:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have any issues with that. I'll undelete the history and leave it as a redirect for the time being, but the redirect should not be removed until the single is released. Shereth16:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'm suprised that you closed this with a keep on the grounds that there was no consensus. By my count, 13 editors voted to delete this article and only 6 voted to keep it, which looks like a consensus to me. Moroever, AfDs are not decided by simple voting, but by the weight of argument and the closing admin's views of the relevant policies, and several keep votes should have been ignored as they were themselves not in line with WP:NOT as they were advocating this article being kept only as the topic may be judged notable sometime in the future (clear cases of WP:CRYSTAL) and you noted that WP:NOTNEWS seems to apply here. Could you please reconsider this decision? Nick Dowling (talk) 10:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One of the problems are that strict vote-counting is almost never a good way to go about determining consensus. 13-6 does seem like a fairly good sized majority, but fully 4 of the !votes in favor of deletion were "per WP:NOTNEWS" and nothing more, and a couple of others said basically the same without citing the essay. While I personally agree that the NOTNEWS argument is persuasive, we have to take in to consideration the fact that it is merely an essay and not a guideline. Several arguments in favor of keeping pointed out that there are reliable sources for the article. Finally, the suggestion that was brought up to merge the content elsewhere has merit, in my opinion, and closing as a no consensus is something of a compromise that gives those in favor of retaining the content some time to improve the content - via a thoughtful merge to a more noteworthy topic or significant improvement to the article - while leaving open the avenue for renominating this article for deletion in the near future if no attempt is made to improve the situation. In any case, I do not feel comfortable deleting an article when meaningful arguments have been made in its favor and the primary criteria for deletion is an essay, a majority in !votes notwithstanding. If you feel my call was in error feel free to bring it up at DRV, but I still feel it was the best solution for the time being. Shereth15:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
12 to 6 isn't consensus? thats a very strange rationale i think. A lot of article get deleted by 4 out of 5 or 8 out of 10 deletes, i think there should be a reconsideration, especially since you think the arguments for delete were persuasive and that deletions should be based on the arguments not votes and the blaring lack of an argument to keep.Myheartinchile (talk) 17:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please read my above rationale for the decision to close as no consensus. I am afraid that my interpretation hasn't changed. Again, if you disagree you are free to bring the issue up at deletion review. Shereth17:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
see, i knew it sounded fishy when you said NOTNEWS is not a policy, but AGF i suppose that you were just careless and made a mistake. thanks for pointing me to DELREV by the way.Myheartinchile (talk) 19:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The review has been open for 2 hours and you're already calling for the discussion to be closed? I don't think so. Shereth20:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for mentioning my recommendation for a merge in your closing summary. I would say that you were clearly sympathetic to a delete/merger, as was there a clear consensus for delete. As a Chinese, I understand about 'face', and would point out that you did not need to endorse the close, even if it was your own. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment shows a significant amount of wisdom and I truly appreciate the sentiment. I'll review the DRV tomorrow and if it continues to trend the way it is I may well retract my recommendation and suggest it go ahead and be deleted. Shereth02:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking the time to contribute, and of course, thanks for voting to support :). I'm going to focus on article writing for a bit (less chance to bite) until my exams are finished and i'm relatively stress-free. Ironholds21:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
i was just in the process of expanding it, did you see my rescue tag i put up? I recreated it, have a look, maybe you can help it out somehow.Myheartinchile (talk) 21:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would actually suggest merging any valuable content (the picture perhaps) into the article about student unions, unless you have some citations to indicate why a separate article on the lounge itself is warranted. Shereth21:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Pardon? I closed the article as a redirect and edited the article appropriately. Do NOT accuse me of vandalism. Shereth20:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You also reverted this edit which was clearly listed as an AfD result in the edit summary. I suggest you slow down a bit and be more deliberate with the way you're handling recent changes patrol. Shereth20:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You have recently deleted article Russia and Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq controversy on the following grounds: "the sourcing is inadequate and that their use constitutes a form of original research at best". Actually, all statements in the article were supported by the published cited sources and therefore do not represent OR. At least, no one of this discussion participants was able to provide any specific examples of unsourced statements. Some participants expressed concerns in reliability of the sources. However, all these sources were published books or established newspapers (the newspapers/journals even have their own articles in WP). Furthermore, statements cited in the article were made by several notable experts (we also have WP articles about them). Have any of these "unreliable" sources been discussed at WP:RS noticeboard and decided to be unreliable? No, as far as I know. Could you then please explain what exactly represented original research in this article? Thank you.Biophys (talk) 13:42, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that the grounds upon which I closed the article were actually "Consensus is clear that the sourcing is inadequate and that their use constitutes a form of original research at best." As a closing administrator it is my duty to judge the consensus of a discussion and not the quality of the article itself - the statement was meant to indicate that the discussion concluded sourcing was inadequate. However I must agree with that assessment. Individual statements within the article - such as the fact that allegations of Russian involvement with Hussein's WMD program were made - are well sourced and not original research, in and of themselves. It is the broader scope of the article, tying these individual facts together in a way to advance the overall topic of Russia's involvement with the WMD "controversy", that constitutes a synthesis of ideas and therefore original research. Shereth13:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article only provided statements by various officials and no any claims by wikipedians (which indeed could be WP:SYN). It made no assertions that the allegations are true. It also provided all official rebuttals of the claims. It was a standard "controversy" article with "pro" and "contra" views present. If any undue problems were present, I think they could be fixed by correcting the article. This page survived two previous AfD discussions, with many good people voting in favor of "keep"...Biophys (talk) 02:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The consensus of the discussion was to delete the article and I am inclined to agree with them - even if I was not, it would not be appropriate to unilaterally keep the article against what was a clear consensus. If you believe my reading of the discussion was in error you can request a review at WP:DRV. Shereth02:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for reply. If I understand correctly, WP:SYN means making conclusions like A+B=>C. This article did not make any conclusions. Maybe I will try DRV later.Biophys (talk) 13:09, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that you incorrectly closed the AfD on David Graham (Scientologist), closing it prematurely under A7. While the likely result of the discussion would have been delete, the article DID indicate why it was important (see 18,000 hits for '"David Graham" Scientology' on google, and the source that WAS in the article). I still don't think that the article would have met notability requirements, but these are a HIGHER standard than A7. DigitalC (talk) 00:15, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The full text of the article was "David Graham is a former high-ranking member of the Church of Scientology who went public in 2008 about his reasons for leaving Scientology." It is my opinion that there is no sufficient claim or indication of notability in that statement. Shereth00:40, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An article about him in one of Australia's largest newspapers, which WAS referenced in the article, is an indication of notability (though it may not meet the requirements of WP:NOTABILITY). DigitalC (talk) 05:08, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments in my RFB. Since it was only at 64%, it was a shoo-in to be unsuccessful, so I withdrew. I didn't want it to run until its scheduled close time because my intent in standing for RFB was to help the bureaucrats with their workload, not give them one more RfX to close. Through the course of my RFB, I received some very valuable feedback, some of it was contradictary, but other points were well agreed upon. I have ceased my admin coaching for now to give me time to revamp my method. I don't want to give up coaching completely, but I'm going to find a different angle from which to approach it. As for my RFA Standards, I am going to do some deep intraspection. I wrote those standards six months ago and I will slowly retool them. This will take some time for me to really dig down and express what I want in an admin candidate. If, after some serious time of deep thought, I don't find anything to change in them, I'll leave them the way they are. I'm not going to change them just because of some community disagreement as to what they should be. Will I stand for RFB again in the future? I don't know. Perhaps some time down the road, when my tenure as an administrator is greater than one year, if there is a pressing need for more active bureaucrats, maybe. If there no pressing need, then maybe not. Useight (talk) 03:14, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the information! I really wasn't sure what the proper procedure was. It's good to have a clearer idea. I'll make note of this from here on out. - Vianello (talk) 08:40, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That was a really balanced closing message, and I appreciate the opportunity to let interested parties try and salvage some content. I'm not living in some magic land of moonbeams and rainbows, I know some IPC articles can be unsourced crap repositories, but honestly, most of them can be saved with some proper care and attention. Cheers, and thanks. --NickPenguin(contribs)02:21, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if I am causing any problems (confusing you etc.) with my Vandalism fighting - I only started using Huggle today so I am still getting used to it (until now I used VP, so this is a big change).
Thanks to your message I found the correct menu for nominating pages for deletion accordingly.
Please take a look at the status of this article. As sgeureka pointed out in the AfD, Patrick Star, which was the article on this character for years, was legitimately redirected in late November of last year. The page was even protectedto keep it as a redirect. The article about Patrick that was the subject of this AfD was created a week ago, in contravention of this. The only article that really should ever be discussed is the main Patrick Star article, as the one in questions is really just a duplicate of a years-old article. In accordance with the consensus I just noted, I have redirected the article to the main show article, to be in line with the Patrick Star article. This is reverted, stating that your closure of the AfD did not mandate redirection. However, AfD is not for merging or redirection, and cannot overrule a merge; this is an editoral process. Since the main Patrick article has been redirected for months with no objection, consensus is therefore needed to unmerge and unredirect a Patrick article. The newly created article should not be its own article at all, regardless of the status of an independent article on Patrick, because it is a duplicate. As I have previous involvement in Spongebob–related articles, I won't use my tools here. I request that you, since you were the one to close the AfD, look into this situation, and ensure that the correct course of action is taken. Thanks. seresin(public computer)02:45, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct in your statement that the decision as to whether or not to redirect is an editorial one. I had hoped that discussion on the matter would continue as such, but since for the time being it seems to be a series of edit reverts, I am going to temporarily protect the article while some discussion on the topic happens. I will leave a note on the article talk page, and I'd encourage you to open a discourse with the other editors involved. Shereth05:23, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
I am an employee of the Arizona Game and Fish Department adding information that is in the public domain to many lakes and other bodies of water within Arizona. I am only copying information from the AZ Game and Fish Deparment. A few other employees are doing the same thing in order to provide more fishing and boating information to the public. Any help in resolving this issue will be appreciated. Scottbulloch (talk) 23:26, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Scottbulloch. The problem with copying information directly from the AZGFD site is that it constitutes a copyright violation. Unlike the federal government, Arizona state agencies such as the AZGFD do not release their work into the public domain and retain their copyright. Your attempts to improve Wikipedia by adding to articles about local lakes and streams is greatly appreciated - it is a topic of importance to me and I'm glad to see someone else trying to help out. However, care needs to be taken to ensure that the material added here does not violate copyright law. Rather than copying and pasting directly from AZGFD sources, it is preferable to take the important bits of data - such as the pertinent statistics about a lake - and then re-write them in a form more suited to our use, then including a link to the original source in the form of a citation. You might find it helpful to read some relevant policies such as our copyright policy as well as how to properly cite sources. Feel free to contact me if you have any further questions. Shereth23:33, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for participating in my RfA, which passed with a final count of 42 supporting, 2 opposing and 2 neutral. I would like to thank Keeper76 especially for the great nomination. I look forward to assist the project and its community as an administrator. Thanks again, CenariumTalk00:07, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your consideration. I felt that the articles of the three Gateways rabbis should stand together or merge together -- after the Rietti article debate closed with a decision to merge, I sensed the debates, which were essentially 'one large debate,' were futile. If consensus is that the regulations are to be applied in their strictest sense, I suppose I myself agree that the three personalities do not merit their own articles. Although I do not believe the regulations were applied fairly and I do think each individual merits their own article (based on their notability + merely mildly supported by the fact that other articles that have existed for many, many years feature biographies of much less notable individuals), I do not rule -- consensus does. So, I folded. And since the AfDs had been open for more than 5 days, I figured I'd take the initiative. Thanks for your work and effort -- they were much appreciated! DRosenbach(Talk | Contribs)20:59, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I attempted to post a comment to WP:Articles for deletion/Donna Upson and ran into an edit conflict with your closure. As you know, the AfD was divided, with 9 Delete comments, 10 Keep comments, and 4 Merge/Redirect. Unless arguments are clear, such a situation should properly close as No Consensus, for Merge comments are a kind of keep, as you noted: some notability, but perhaps not enough for a separate article (and so they are also a kind of delete). Your closure reason stated: the fact that there was a rough split between keep and delete tells me there is some weight to the argument that she is somewhat notable but perhaps not enough for an article - thus merging seems to make the most sense. That is using vote count as if it were an argument, which is not proper. The matter would hinge no the arguments. This is what I didn't post because of the edit conflict, I'll repeat it here for your convenience (I also posted it to Talk for the Upson article, before any editors started merging.)
Comment Many of the delete votes here seem to assume that Upson is notable only for the 2003 mayoral candidacy. That's not the case. She was the subject of major media coverage in 2000 and 2001. There was also at one time available much more source from 2003 that doesn't show up in Google now, because the Ottawa Citizen doesn't have public archives that far back (or that I could find, and the Wayback machine doesn't go back to 2003 for them), and apparently there was CBC stuff on her too, see [this blog from 2003], which provides 5 links to what would have been RS which are now dead. Cornflakes-are-great is certainly an SPA, registered to vote here (immediately upon registration), but we should take this for what it is: a report, unlikely to be utterly false, that there has been significant television coverage, which seems reasonable, given the print coverage. The previous AfD was heavily Keep. Perhaps this reflected the better sources available then? Those sources could be tracked down if someone wanted to go to a library in Ottawa, for the Ottawa Citizen articles. She is not notable merely as a "politician," if it were the candidacy alone it wouldn't be a blip on our radar, so WP:POLITICIAN as mentioned above doesn't apply. But from that guideline: Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. We have a subject who has received major media attention, we have reliable sources for the information in the article (and more, if someone digs to back up what is in that blog). I don't see anything in the guideline about recent coverage, which is an issue raised by some who have commented. So what, exactly, is the problem with this article?--Abd (talk) 16:55, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I urge you to carefully consider what I presented in that comment. If we discount !votes without arguments and those which rested on clearly flawed arguments (such as "failed mayoral candidacy," as if the candidacy alone and the vote record were the justifications for the notability, which includes the nomination), we have not one Delete !vote standing. This subject, as I note in my comment that ran into th edit conflict, did, in fact, receive extensive independent coverage in RS; some of it still stands (enough to serve for an article as brief as the article was), but more clearly exists, see the blog mentioned. For the print sources, all somebody has to do is go to a library that preserves that newspaper. The article could be expanded (the blog contains quotations of articles that might be of value if the original source is confirmed). Much of this, though, violates {WP:UNDUE]] if put in the Ottawa election article, and nobody thought to notify them before the AfD, that merged content like this might be descending on them; yet those who have taken on the Merge task seem to assume that there is a consensus for Merge, see the edit history of the Upson page and Talk for that page.
I'm trusting that you will reverse your decision to what would have been proper, No Consensus or Keep, addressing the arguments themselves instead of !vote counts. This would save us all the trouble of a Deletion Review. (No Consensus would respect all those who !voted for Delete, while Keep would be a decision that confirms what I've been saying: WP:POLITICIAN, far from indicating that the subject is not notable, indicates the opposite: this person received substantial independent RS coverage, starting in 2000. That there is none I could find after that doesn't make her not notable: that's why I said that notability does not expire. The earlier AfD had a very strong Keep consensus, and that may have been due to better availability at the time of the sources, so people did a search and, bang!, there they were. I normally don't even look at blogs in reviewing an AfD, but I decided to look deeper, perhaps a blog referred to something usable. And the one I cited did, indicating, from 2003, that there was wider source than we now might think, from our internet bias.
(I've seen before that an AfD results in a Merge decision without having considered the effect on the target article. I consider Merge results to be a recommendation, not a consensus applicable to the target article, since it didn't have appropriate participation. The biggest problem usually created is undue weight, as properly sourced material from the original article can be too much detail for the target. WP:SUMMARY#Levels of desired details, in fact, suggests that an article be split off if this becomes a problem.) Thanks for your attention to this. --Abd (talk) 21:32, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
After having considered your response I still have to respectfully disagree with your assessment of the case. As far as the previous AfD was concerned, I did not give it much consideration due to the fact that it is over 3 years old and that is plenty of time for consensus to change. I also do not agree with your argument that the delete !votes were unfounded and should be discounted. A no consensus closure would have been quite acceptable in this case, because as I stated in the closure, clearly there was no consensus to either delete or keep. However, there are cases - and I feel this is one of them - where a compromise solution is preferable to no consensus, which is in effect giving up on a solution. In this case in particular, there is a paucity of reliable sources to be found on the subject but just enough that some folks argued for keeping on the grounds that it squeaked by. Closing these borderline cases - when no additional sourcing is forthcoming - as a no consensus is, in my opinion, an invitation for the situation to repeat ad infinitum until someone intervenes with a compromise, which is what I have done here. I am unwilling to reverse my decision to keep because there was certainly no consensus to do so, and remain unconvinced that reversing to no consensus is a superior solution to the problem. Shereth21:59, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your consideration. I understand why you came to the conclusion you did, I believe. Certainly consensus can change, but I think you may have missed my point: there is strong indication that at one time there was more reliable source for the article than is easy to access at this point. Most of that could be found by anyone with access to actual print newspaper archives. So, as you note, there is "just enough RS to squeak by" -- which is what is easy to find. But there is apparently as much or more available in addition, just not googleable directly. (I found it through quotation on a blog, cited in my post to Talk: Donna Upson). The merge is taking place and some additional material has been added to the election article, the target of the Merge, though I'm not certain it's reliably sourced. It really doesn't belong there, the details of, for example, how much time she spent in jail are improper for that article, bu the editors were correct: to leave the outstanding warrants issue hanging, five years later, would be poor BLP policy. It's pretty messy in the target article, it was fine as it was on its own, it violated no notability guidelines, contrary to the delete !votes. We had practically a stub, with more possible. I looked at the delete votes and none of them were correct in substance, they assumed that she was simply a failed candidate and that isn't enough for an article, which is correct, and would be the case if all she had done was run for mayor and if it had not received wide media attention.
Essentially we have sufficient independent reliable source for an article on this woman, and the question is whether or not that material belongs in the Election article or in its own article. If it were only about the Ottawa election, definitely, that's where it would belong. But it's not only about that, and the proper way to handle this is pretty much what we had: brief mention of her in the election article, with reference to her own article for detail.
In any case, this is my plan, if we can't come to an agreement: to take this to DRV, and to notify the participants in the previous two AfDs of the deletion review, and to document the problems I've noted. Because I believe that the arguments I've made are clear, I expect the result to overturn the Merge decision. I have no personal attachment to this article, I'm purely doing this because the article met notability standards, and the delete votes seemed to not be aware of the extent of the sources available.
To me the arguments for keep were clear, but not completely expressed before you closed. Keep was the proper decision, in fact, but I also understand that, in view of the !Delete votes, you didn't, and don't, want to come to a Keep decision. Given that the votes were evenly divided, No Consensus was actually the case. Merge is often a good compromise, but not in this case, once the extent and nature of what's available in RS became clear. This is why I think that DRV will come back Keep, or, similarly, another AfD would have that same result. --Abd (talk) 02:43, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your considered reply. I believe what we have here is an excellent illustration of why WP:ONEEVENT and WP:NOT#NEWS were written. At the time it was not difficult to write an article and find citations for this woman - she is intimately connected to an event that was, in and of itself, notable (the elections), but once the elections passed she has faded from the spotlight, so to speak. The possibility that sources may have been more abundant is purely speculative and not very convincing an argument for notability. If the detail being merged into the article about the elections is inappropriate, it may be that the details being added are inappropriate for inclusion overall. In any case, I still do not find the arguments for keeping this article any more or less valid or helpful than the ones for deleting it, which in tandem with the calls for merging the material make me believe the decision to merge is the correct one. If you feel it necessary to bring up to DRV that is fine, and it may well be that they see fit to overturn the decision - I am happy to acknowledge that I used a certain amount of administrative discretion in this close. It was, and remains, my intention to close the article in a manner that I believe is most fitting to the arguments made by the community. Again, it is my belief that in cases like this pressing for a "no consensus" close merely as because a strict and literal adherence to procedure is overlooking the need for satisfactory resolution and putting the objective of improving Wikipedia second to following the rules. Shereth03:06, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, again, for your continued consideration. I did some more research. My suspicion that sources may have been more extensive wasn't exactly speculative, I had quotes from them, but I now have a lot more, see User:Abd/Donna Upson. I do disagree with your assessment of my motives, I'm considering precisely the improvement of the project, and the addition of reliably sourced material on this woman is not appropriate in Ottawa municipal election, 2003. There is lots of stuff I've already found, and more that could be found. In particular, her media attention from 2000 and 2001 isn't in the archive I found, it only starts with 2003. That SPA who !voted was right, it appears, there was CBC coverage. But it isn't needed, I merely mention it to indicate the degree of notability. --Abd (talk) 04:05, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I went over the information you have there and I'm not 100% convinced that the sources would make a big difference, but as you have made it abundantly clear that you'd rather not refer this to DRV I'll offer to make a compromise with you. Go ahead and restore the article to standalone status (undo the merge) and make any changes to it you see fit. Once you have done this I will re-list the article for discussion at a new AfD to try and get a clearer consensus on the issue. Is this an acceptable compromise to you? Shereth14:47, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Yes, this is fine. Generally it is best, if possible, to resolve issues at the lowest level available (consensus of the least number of people distracted from other work on the project). I can't see how I could possibly object to your compromise! (It is, in fact, quite the same as what I was asking for.) There has been work done, in the meantime, to merge the information with the new article, which is relatively harmless (A little extra detail, a little WP:UNDUE is not an emergency by any means.) My opinion is that, in any case, the actual Redirect should have been postponed until the new information was settled in the target article; at that point we know better which is best: merged content or separate content with appropriate reference in summary style, and future AfD !voters could be looking at both options, with fuller references, more able to compare. There may, however, be some objection from those who really wanted Delete. Merge is an option that doesn't require an AfD, actually. All it would take is a consensus of the editors working on Donna Upson and Ottawa municipal election, 2003. My biggest problem is that the AfD made a decision about the Ottawa election article, without consulting the editors of that article. Seeking and finding editorial consensus, in my view, is always better than going for AfD right off the bat. AfDs attract !voters who will vote without actually researching the issue, unfortunately; the AfD process works best if serious attempt has been made, first, to find consensus, so there is an existing debate that can be referred to, and then neutral editors become involved if consensus can't be reached. Thanks again for being willing to reconsider your decision, and, by doing this, you have avoided a big hassle for me. As I wrote, I understand why you decided as you did, it was not unreasonable given what you were presented with. --Abd (talk) 16:39, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi I've made an intital suggestion at the GEOBOT talk page in that it would be an excellent idea to generate a full lists of places in a tabled list. Once this is accomplished we can work through what articles could be started in their own right if there is enough info avilabale. I see it as a solid comprehensive base to build geo content on if we have a full world list organized like this. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geography/Bot#Creating lists. Please offer your thoughts thanks ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦$1,000,000?14:25, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see how you have been bullied at all. I'm sorry if you've interpreted anyone's actions as being bullying toward you. Shereth01:26, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see it either, Shereth. Something is going on here besides what was plainly visible. I suspected it from the 2nd AfD, a sense that behind the AfD and some of the votes was extraordinary detestation of the subject of the article. GreenJoe has "retired," which seems pretty drastic, a disagreement over an AfD, when I've seen far worse be shrugged off? Edit warring with you on closing the AfD, when there is plenty of proper process left? The AfD was going Keep, strongly, just as the DRV is going Endorse. It doesn't make sense, unless something is hidden.[1]
Killerofcruft registered during the 2nd AfD, and is now pretty much taking GreenJoe's place. Might bear watching. There was another oddity in this case, Durova's participation in the 2nd AfD was solicited.[2] That was, in fact, how I noticed the AfD itself, since I watch her Talk. Not a big deal, it was just one more !vote from someone who hadn't looked carefully at the sources and the overall balance. I have a great deal of respect for Durova, but she's overtaxed. I didn't get really clear about this situation until I'd put several hours into it.--Abd (talk) 14:01, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While I may have quit, you need to remind Abd to assume good faith. Never in my entire time on Wikipedia, have I ever contributed to an AfD under different names. A checkuser will confirm I am neither of the people he accuses me of being. GreenJoe02:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't accused GreenJoe of being anyone other than himself. An AN/I report on Killerofcruft was begun by other users noting some level of reasonable suspicion that Koc was a sock of certain other blocked "cruft-killers." I pointed out two other possibilities: one relatively strong one, that he was User:Fredrick day, for reasons given there, and that, given the timing, it could not be ruled out as well that he was GreenJoe. I also stated that I did not consider this likely enough to pursue at this time. (If I had to bet, I'd put a dime on GreenJoe and a dollar on Fredrick day, and I'd want more than two dollars if it was either. This is quite a bit short of an "accusation," and it would serve GreenJoe to learn the difference.) Fredrick day, by the way, has previously stated he has other accounts.... but we can't just checkuser everyone! (As all this was going on, an IP editor, quite likely Fd, vandalized my user page, but that could be a coincidence.) --Abd (talk) 03:40, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To be absolutely fair, it is true that you did not make any outright accusation but you may wish to be a little bit more diplomatic in the way certain things are stated, as sometimes a suggestion can come across as sounding more like an accusation. Shereth03:43, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Shereth, it can. My comments are actually neutral, I'm pretty careful about that, but there are people who are disposed to take them as Koc did. These people are highly at risk already. I didn't take Koc to AN/I, others did, and my comments there didn't inflame anyone. If anything, they contributed to cooling it down (by noting that Koc hadn't done anything clearly blockworthy), which seeded the consensus that he was not to be blocked. I'll note, however, that I was the first to "suggest" that Koc looked like a returning user. While he did not volunteer that, he did immediately acknowledge it. "Returning users" who "exercised their right to disappear," when they immediately become embroiled in controversy, very often turn out to be blocked users. So, quite simply, I don't accept the claim without retaining a level of suspicion. That isn't high enough to go to SSP, --maybe--, nor is the disruption at a level that I would have gone to AN/I myself. But once others went there, I commented with what I knew. The continued defiant, put up or shut up behavior, actually, is maintaining the suspicion. It could be noticed that Koc "retired," claiming that he was "in tears." There were administrators and experienced users calling for him to be blocked. It wasn't me, and it didn't come from what I wrote. It came from how he responded to me, and from how he had commented on others and their work. This, as well, is a sign of a blocked user. I'm not inciting a riot, not attempting to prevent Koc from editing, and any bad reputation he's acquiring is coming as a result of his own angry posts. It came to the point that an administrator removed one of his AN/I comments because it "wasn't helping." Below, Koc claims that the AN/I report was closed because "it was a lot of crap." No, it was the community taking notice of a problem user and concluding that the problem did not yet warrant blocking. I'd say that Koc is skating on thin ice. Once this kind of attention is focused on a user, they can get blocked for jaywalking. That's unfortunate, but it's the reality. As I wrote at the beginning of this, if Koc continues as he has, he's likely to end up blocked. If he changes his behavior, that's another story. It's his choice.--Abd (talk) 13:39, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am sick to death with this - the ANI report was closed because it was a lot of crap. If abd et al continues to run around suggesting to all and sundry that I'm a sockpuppet or a banned user, I'll be the one heading to AN/I. If you think I am Greenjoe - present some evidence. If you think I am Frederick Day, present some evidence. If you think I am Pol Pot - present some evidence. Put up or shut up. If I see Abd or any of those other people "discussing" this matter without evidence, I'll be asking for blocks - it's an attempt to bully me and I will NOT stand for it, I haven't done anything but edited in good faith and I refuse to feel bad for that. --Killerofcruft (talk) 08:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Stalking" implies harassment. Any harassment there? Arcayne asked for help on User talk:Killerofcruft, I knew how to help, so I responded. Arcayne thanked me. Wikipedia is a community. We talk to each other. If I were looking at Koc's contributions, going to all the articles, and countering him there, it would be quite another matter. But I haven't looked at Koc's contribs since the AN/I report, if then, I don't remember. What happened here is that, yes, I put a watch on Koc's Talk. That's not stalking, that's prudence. As a result, I saw Arcayne's request for help. There is a little more, if you look there, but not much more. Koc is continuing to take ordinary editorial interaction as being pointed at him. What was the threat to him there? I can't see any. Arcayne is taking on AfD, obviously being, in spite of his massive contributions, a little green at it.... Another user helped as well. Problem with this? Now, the charge of stalking here is itself incivility. Killerofcruft is making his own bed. I have no plans or intentions to file any complaint, he'd have to become seriously annoying before I'd do that, and, of course, I'd formally warn him first. But if someone else files a complaint, this stuff will come up. I'm giving him good advice. Shereth, you can ask me to stop at any time. This is your Talk page, you are the sovereign here, generally. Koc may not be able to edit my talk page, because of frequent vandalism by Fredrick day, but I also watch his Talk. If he puts my name in an edit summary, I'll probably see it. And then he is the sovereign over it, he can revert me there if he likes, as much as he likes. But I'd highly suggest that he not go down GreenJoe's path with uncivil revert summaries to his Talk. GreenJoe might have been blocked if he hadn't retired promptly.--Abd (talk) 20:33, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, this has now been left dangling, since the page it redirects to is no longer there. Would it be appropriate to delete this as well now? Or does it require a separate discussion? The same applies to List of purported cults (and maybe others?). Cheers, Jayen46612:16, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, these (and there were several others) need to be deleted as well. I got so caught up in writing the closure itself that I neglected to take care of the broken redirects. Thank you for the heads up. Shereth13:39, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops, never realised I had done that, I had the edit box open for a bit so am surprised it didn't come up with an edit conflict warning, sorry. Davewild (talk) 21:41, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi shereth. the reason I chose this username is because I really like The Simpsons and I think Matt Groening is a great person. if this does not satisfy the dispute then I will change my username to something more suitable. Matt groening (talk) 23:44, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your response. Unfortunately, we cannot allow you to keep the user name because some people may confuse you for the actual Matt Groening, especially since you are interested in editing Simpsons related articles. Please consider a request at changing usernames that might reflect your love of The Simpsons and/or Matt Groening in a way that does not bring up the possibility of confusion over impersonation. If you need help putting together a request, let me know. Thanks again for the prompt response! Shereth23:48, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That should be fine, and it looks like the username is available. For clarity's sake you may wish to put a notice on your user page as well just to make it clear that you are not Matt Groening. Please go to username change requests to ask for your name to be changed. Cheers! Shereth23:54, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again shereth. I have just requested that my username be changed. do you know how long i will have to wait for the change, or is there any way I can check the status. Thanks. I have one quick question seeing as we seem to be getting on quite well I hope this isn't too personal but my question is:Matt groening (talk) 00:32, 25 June 2008 (UTC)How long have you been a Wikipedian for as you seem to have a good grasp of Wikipedia?[reply]
Usually, requests to have your name changed take a few hours - if the bureaucrats are especially busy it may take as much as a day but I've not seen it that bad. You can just go back to the request page and see if your request has been updated. As far as your other question - I've been editing Wikipedia for about 4 years :) Shereth01:02, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
List of amendments proposed by Barack Obama in the United States Senate closure
I apologize for not making it more clear what I was trying to say. To elaborate, I treated the two discussions as individual debates because that is what they were - related but separate. There was a consensus to delete on one, keep on the other. While I can only speculate as to why, it would appear to me that, on the whole, the community appears to treat "amendments" as somewhat less notable/important/what have you than "bills". What the comment in the closure was meant to accomplish was to stave off any complaints that I deleted one while I kept the other. Yes, from a purely technical standpoint bills and amendments to bills are substantially similar, nevertheless the outcome in each was substantially different. I am, however, open to reconsidering the close if there is sufficient rationale for a better way of handling it. Shereth15:12, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again shereth, I have had my username changed.Matt G (talk) 20:59, 25 June 2008 (UTC) I just want to thank you for all your advice and I hope that we can stay in contact through our respective talk pages. Thanks again :)[reply]
No problem! Feel free to let me know if you ever have any questions or concerns that I can help you with. Happy editing! Shereth21:07, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am trying to update the coordinates for Stoneman Lake and the coordinates I received from the field officer was missing the seconds. I put the degrees and minutes there until I received the seconds. I just updated the page to include the seconds.Jayba (talk) 22:06, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
