Welcome to my talkpage!

Ordinarily, any comments placed here will stay, and only simple vandalism will be reverted. If you wish to make a personal attack against me it will stay for everyone to see. Someone else will judge whether an attack says more about you or about me however.

Note that I am quite inconsistent with where I make responses.

• If it is a response I think several people might be interested in reading, I might respond here. Otherwise, I will probably respond on your talkpage.
• I do not respond to every message (most notably RFA thank you notices), although I normally reply to requests and questions. Sometimes I am unable or do not have the time to do so (or I see that the problem has already been fixed). If I don't respond to your posting, please forgive me.

Previous archives of my talkpage can be found at

• User talk:Sjakkalle/March and April 2005
• User talk:Sjakkalle/May and June 2005
• User talk:Sjakkalle/July and August 2005
• User talk:Sjakkalle/September and October 2005
• User talk:Sjakkalle/November and December 2005
• User talk:Sjakkalle/January and February 2006
• User talk:Sjakkalle/March, April and May 2006
• User talk:Sjakkalle/June, July and August 2006
• User talk:Sjakkalle/September, October, November and December 2006
• User talk:Sjakkalle/January-June 2007
• User talk:Sjakkalle/July 2007-2008
• User talk:Sjakkalle/2009
• User talk:Sjakkalle/2010

I am an administrator. If you need something done which needs admin tools, and it's uncontroversial, I'll do my best to be at your service. If it's an action which would be controversial, or which needs some sort of community discussion beforehand, I'll direct you to the appropriate forum.

Just catching up after the holidays. I read your close on the TfD and I'm glad that someone took the time to thoroughly weigh and consider the arguments instead of going for the easy "no consensus". I read your comment on here in your 2010 archive regarding balancing the idea of "supervote" vs "consideration of the arguments". I think that admins often don't consider the arguments carefully enough. What winds up happening is our supposed !votes become actual votes, with a 90% threshold or so for deletion. I've been at DRV several times arguing that a particular admin did not consider a situation carefully enough, but it's a hard argument to win, especially when the way the admin closed was based on a heavy level of numerical support.

Anyway, a victory for WP:CLUE, an essay that doesn't get cited as much as it used to. Thanks. Gigs (talk) 18:37, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You abused your admin powers by acting as a tie breaker in a clear no consensus vote on template:expand. Are you up for recall? --174.20.178.185 (talk) 07:07, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not on the list of administrators open to recall, because it eliminates some of the freedom one has to make unpopular or controversial decisions. I do my best to explain my decisions, but I do not resign over them. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:06, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I've left a comment on this template's talk page regarding the rewording following its TfD. IMO the TfD didn't establish any productive need for change, and the new wording (and recategorisation from style to content) does nothing to make the template clearer. I'd appreciate a followup on template talk explaining the changes you made. Cheers! Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 05:31, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was recently looking at Stewardship (theology). In my view for a proper presentation of the subject from a global perspective, the article really ought also to be presenting, at the very least, the highly developed and closely related notions of Stewardship in Judaism and in Islam, rather than just Christianity. In my view the article as it stands at the moment should be tagged to note this -- in the same sort of way that {{globalize}} is used to indicate that an article would benefit from a wider perspective that that based on the experience of just one or a couple of countries.

Unfortunately, I don't presently have the time to research and write such sections myself; but I feel it is important to indicate that in a proper treatment of the subject, one should expect to find such material.

In the past, I might have used {{expand}} with the field concern=. But I see that, following a TfD you closed, the {{expand}} template is now no longer available.

So I was wondering, what would you suggest in its stead? Thanks, Jheald (talk) 13:58, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! If there is an important aspect of the subject which is completely missing in the article, the {{missing information}} tag is probably what you are looking for. Remember to specify in the tag what information you are missing, otherwise other editors will be completely in the dark. Another (possibly better) option if you have time is to start a section on what you think ought to be in there, add a few sentences to it (keeping it encyclopedic, albeit brief) and then use {{expand section}} to indicate that this material needs fleshing out. The point of these templates is that they are specific, and thus give much better guidance than the {{expand}} tag did. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:34, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That was WP:OR. What the FEW keepers said. They said those were the most prestigious awards... that is definitely OR. There is no published list on the internet of "the most prestigious awards". I don't see any reason to ever consider that as an argument to keep the article. Feedback ^☎ 16:38, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• That was a particularly difficult AFD to close, but Jaxsonjo did provide a source showing that the awards mentioned in the list/article were the highpoints of film awards. That point was also supported by Postdlf. As for my personal opinion of the article, I tend to agree with Edison's delete vote and your nomination statement (of which I feel Postdlf was being unduly critical), and the awkward title is an indication that more thought should have been put into the list before posting it on Wikipedia. However, there simply wasn't the community consensus behind deletion this time around since the people arguing for keep had some reasonable and good faith arguments too. Also, some of the "delete" "votes" were poorly reasoned (e.g. "Delete. silly trivia" doesn't really cut it). Sjakkalle (Check!) 17:11, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did you even look at that source? The source is a much larger list. It's different than the one used in the article. And yes, the people who wrote "silly trivia" wrote it because it was true. Sometimes, articles are in fact "silly trivia" and should be deleted. Feedback ^☎ 17:49, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly looked at that source, and I also observed that two additional prizes (Independent Spirit and US National Board of Review) were on it. Concerning Independent Spirit, I can still see where Jaxsonjo is coming from, since that award goes to independent film makers, thus excluding films from the mainstream Hollywood system. I do have a bit more trouble seeing why NBR isn't there. Maybe you can discuss that matter with Jaxsonjo? Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:05, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Or maybe I can discuss it at the discussion I opened at AFD? But oh wait, you closed it. You closed it knowing additional discussion was warranted such as the ones you stated above. I don't have a problem with an AFD being closed as "No Consensus", but when you don't allow the whole discussion to take place, then I find it outright disrespectful. Consensus can't be formed if you just suspend discussion like that. Feedback ^☎ 08:09, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That I didn't allow the discussion to take place is simply false. The discussion ran for almost eight days, they are usually closed after seven. Moreover, I didn't cut an active discussion short, the last comment was entered four days before I closed the AFD. There was plenty of time to engage in continued discussion if someone had wanted to. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:41, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't change the fact that discussion wasn't over, the issue wasn't settled and that you acknowledged this by saying I should continue discussing the sources with another editor from the AFD. An AFD goes a minimum of 7 days, yes, but it doesn't mean its your duty to close every single one that goes after that mark. Consensus takes time, and I don't know if you know this, but one of Wikipedia's main goals is to achieve consensus in all discussions. Now that you went ahead and closed the AFD, is consensus going to be achieved now? Tell me, did you closing that AFD before consensus was formed actually benefit the article at all? No. You closed it because you wanted to close it. It's that simple. And by doing so, you sabotaged the consensus of that discussion, and now, another AFD will have to be opened and everything will have to be pointed out AGAIN just because you thought that the discussion shouldn't have been given any more time and decided to just pop in and end the discussion. Yeah, great move. Feedback ^☎ 14:11, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback, using the words "outright disrespectful" and "sabotage" against me on what really is a routine AFD close indicates that you are taking the result far too personally. I shall make no further responses on this thread, if you wish to appeal the close I made, please use WP:DRV. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:50, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I didn't say you tried to sabotage or were disrespectful towards me, I said you sabotaged consensus. What I meant by that is that you deliberately halted the road to consensus by closing the AFD. How do you not see it? After closing, you told me there are still issues to be discussed and yet you said it after closing the discussion in which we could have debated these issues. You are disallowing consensus to be achieved by stopping the conversation. I don't want to use deletion review, I have no problem with you or you closing the AFD. I just have a problem with you closing the AFD too early. If there was a consensus to delete or a consensus to keep, we would never know, because you suspended discussion before we could arrive at the consensus. You obviously know what you did wrong. How could you not? Feedback ^☎ 20:36, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A formal Request for Comment has now been started on this topic. Feel free to contribute; best, Ironholds (talk) 21:13, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could you wait more than a few minutes after the creation of a page to delete it? I was having trouble with my connection, and you deleted The Little Man (comics) literally as I was uploading the content for the page from Emacs. I couldn't figure out why I kept getting an error trying to upload. You were my error. Acidtoyman (talk) 12:54, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that, but in my defense the article was 14 minutes old (and not 1 minute old) when I deleted it. When I saw the page it had the content "{{italic title}}", I assumed it was a test page or something like that. Generally, if you are drafting up an article, it is better to first put it in your userspace (e.g. User:Acidtoyman/The Little Man (comics)) if you need some time to assemble it. Once the article is put in article space, it is effectively published and "fair game" that the NPP hawks will swoop down upon. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:08, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than using a Special page, I've taken to composing pages on Emacs and then uploading them. You'll also notice I didn't say anything about "1 minute", I said "a few minutes"---my connection was acting up, and when it got settled the page was gone (which made me waste a few more minutes figuring out why I couldn't upload the page). Is 14 minutes without content more than the world can bear? Acidtoyman (talk) 14:50, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:New pages patrol recommends "at least" 15 minutes before hitting the delete button unless the content is pure vandalism, so I admit that I was a bit on the fast side. There is a certain balancing line between deleting too quickly (which causes the problem you had), and deleting too slowly (which may cause the article to slip out of the Newpages list, and be missed altogether), but I recognize that I was probably listing too heavily into the "too fast" zone. Another option if you expect to make updates to a newly created page is adding the {{New page}} template. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:46, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll keep {{New page}} in mind in the future. Sorry to be so pissy. Acidtoyman (talk) 13:56, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I see you have closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rail transport in Burundi (which was my nomination) and deleted Rail transport in Burundi. Looking around I see there are a few other "Rail transport in X" pages which redirect to the relevant "Transport in X#Railways" page (and I've just redirected a couple more myself), so I'm wondering if you agree it would be better to resurrect Rail transport in Burundi as a redirect to Transport in Burundi#Railways (and if you think that would be in keeping with the spirit of the AfD decision)? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:29, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I considered posting a redirect, but the reason I didn't do it myself was a feeling that the coverage of "Railways" in the Transport in Burundi article had more or less the same problems as the deleted article, and that most of it can be culled to "There are no railways in Burundi". I therefore decided to leave the future fate of that material up to someone else's editorial discretion. If the ultimate decision is to keep the section, a redirect sounds reasonable. In general, when an article gets deleted on AFD, it is perfectly acceptable, and often advisable, to redirect the redlink to a relevant article. WP:CSD#G4 refers to repostings of the substantially same material, but a redirect isn't that. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:36, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense, thanks - I'll leave it as it is -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:51, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I saw you closed the Expand Tag and understand why however what do you suggest on an article like: Eruption of Mount Vesuvius in AD 79. I think it's too long to be a stub but too short to be a complete article. None of the sections seem to be short enough to warrent {{expand section}}. Therefore what do you suggest I do in a case like this?Etineskid (talk) 17:58, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• {{Incomplete}} is reasonable if it is a new article where the author(s) haven't finished. If you can identify what parts of the subject which are lacking coverage {{missing information}}, along with parameters for is a good option. In the ad hoc case of the article you mentioned, I am a bit puzzled as to why the authors decided to make a spin-out which contains less detail than the parent article Vesuvius, and I would seriously consider proposing a merge and redirect ({{mergeto}}) on that one. (Usually, a spin-out should be made using the WP:SUMMARY style, beginning with a copy the relevant sections from the parent article, and then cutting the coverage in the parent article to a few summarizing paragraphs). Sjakkalle (Check!) 19:59, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sjakkalle. I'm doing some research for an article on Los Angeles-based marijuana activist William Kroger. I got a notice that back in 2005, you deleted an entry with the same name --is the person I'm interested in writing up the same as who you deleted? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pln9mg (talk • contribs) 07:21, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi, the deletion summary in the deletion log is accurate. The article I deleted was pure vandalism and I'm afraid there was no content there which will be of any use. (The only edits were creation and speedy-delete tagging.) Good luck with your research! Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:40, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please undelete this page. I have the all the page info for it and it has been revised. It was currently disputed because theres was not enough third-party sites to show significance. I have added a plethora of references so that it can no longer be disputed thank you.Rudyryan (talk) 08:30, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Also this page is protected and was salted. Can you please have this reversed because the title Sigma Chi Omega is much better than the beforehand Sigma Chi Omega Multicultural Fraternity Inc.
• unsalt

Thanks In advance Rudyryan (talk) 08:37, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you have also discussed this with User:Athaenara. I am a bit concerned about the article on this fraternity being posted repeatedly, and then re-deleted. It is for that reason Sigma Chi Omega has been protected against recreation. I will restore the article and move it to User:Rudyryan/Sigma Chi Omega so that you have a chance to work on it, add references, and demonstrate notability. Note that WP:WEBHOST, Wikipedia is not a webspace provider, and user subpages are in principle meant for encyclopedic work; as such restoration is not permanent. I do have concerns about the current state of the article, which looks like rather promotional material. Since the article has been reposted so many times, I don't think I can make a unilateral decision to undo the protection (which I believe is in line with the protection policy). When you have improved the article to the point that it meets WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:N, and WP:NOR, I suggest that you bring the matter to WP:DRV so that the community can assess the improved version. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:07, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You Rudyryan (talk) 21:11, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sjakkalle -- I have a quick question. I have an article I'm putting together that already redirects to someone with a similar name.

Do I compose the article on the redirect page? I've tried searching for the correct procedure but I can't find anything. Thanks is advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pln9mg (talk • contribs) 21:07, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Yes, to write a new article at a page which is a redirect, you simply replace the redirect with your article. There are a couple of good habits to keep in mind though:

1. Use the "What links here" tool to see what links to the (now former) redirect. You may need to change some of the links in order to continue directing people to the right article instead of your new article.
2. Consider placing an {{other uses}}-template at the top of the article.

Sjakkalle (Check!) 05:22, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, you will usually find a wider audience for such inquiries, and receive a more rapid response, at the Wikipedia:Help desk. Happy editing! Sjakkalle (Check!) 05:25, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A week has passed since the horrific bombing which took place in Oslo, and then the atrocious, senseless, massacre of children and youth at the summer camp at Utøya. The thought process which leads a person to coldly walk about an idyllic campground and fire a bullet into so many young, defenceless, and peaceful people, and have no remorse about it, is utterly beyond any comprehension. I cannot even begin to imagine the fear that the people on that island must have felt as a "police officer" walks around executing their friends. There are also many who still lie seriously injured in hospitals, and one can only hope that they will make a full recovery.

This past week, I have been more active, mainly on the article and talkpages on the two main pages related to the attacks, the main 2011 Norway attacks and the perpetrator, Anders Behring Breivik. Some other articles have been updated due to the terror on 22 July. This is the first time I have worked this intensely on a series of articles where the subject matter is so utterly tragic and serious, and where collecting source material has been so painful. Looking back, I have made some thoughts and observations:

• My first edits after the attacks were related to whether there should be a separate article on the perpetrator in the first place. I supported that, and I still do. The attack has become extremely notorious, and so dominant in the Norwegian press and television news coverage, that the exception in the WP:BLP1E policy, If the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial and well-documented—as in the case of John Hinckley, Jr., who shot President Ronald Reagan in 1981—a separate biography may be appropriate., is very well met. The arguments that "he hasn't been convicted", which would be a good argument if there were a danger that we pre-judge the suspect, ring in my mind utterly hollow, given that nobody, not even Breivik, disputes that he carried out these attacks.
• The attacks were very clearly terrorism, and virtually all media describe the attacks as such. We would not be summarizing the source material in a fair and accurate way if we failed to describe the attacks as "terrorism" in the Wikipedia articles.
• I have only added a few lines of new content:
  • Anders Breivik's former affiliation with FrP (Progress Party) was one I had some serious reservations about making, because connecting Breivik with a major political party (that incidentally, I have serious philosophical disagreements with), may seem overtly political. Nonetheless, this issue has been brought up numerous times in media, sometimes in rather unsavory forms, and I feel that the last days have shown that this connection was worthy of mention.
  • The domestic reaction had to be in the article, but I made a rather poor job of it, resulting in what was more or less a quote farm. Fortunately, this has been mercilessly edited and its current shape looks much better than what I submitted originally.
  • The raiding of a house at Rødtvet was a hasty addition, I reverted it myself about an hour later.
  • The arraignment and remand of Breivik was after a request on the talkpage. The entry is short, and it hasn't been expanded much since. My initial reaction is that it ought to be expanded more... but when I think again I wonder if it is all that noteworthy. Most of what was said there has been said before, and there wasn't much new which happened there. Fortunately, Breivik did not get to use the hearing as a chance to soapbox his ideas.
  • I made a couple of edits including ways in which some of the youth, thank heavens, were able to find safe refuge. At Skolestua the personnel had some knowledge of how to set up a barricade by setting up mattresses in front of the window and getting everyone to hide away as well as they could. The caves on the west shore also provided a refuge for many, and several of the experienced youth who knew about these hiding places were able to guide the youngest children to these locations. In an encyclopedia, these things can only be reported in a dispassionate, matter-of-fact tone, but they really are stories of immense heroism, a heroism which these edits do not really give justice to.
• In most cases, vandalism is a mere annoyance. We handle it by reverting the vandalism, blocking the vandal, then ignore and move on. In this case, the gravity and tragedy which these events are, have made me angry when I see vandalism edits which try to make light out of what happened. Edits like this one, where the edit summary says we should "avoid" ("WP:WTA") the word "extremist", all while describing attacked camp victims as being at an "extremist left-wing", are the type which are just painful to look at. Nor do I understand why someone would revert to put such an edit back in. (Unless it is the same person.)
• On the issue of whether Breivik's manifesto should be used as a primary source, I am inclined to think it should not, or at least not without qualification. I do not trust what Breivik says. He says the attacks were "awful but necessary", and that it was "sad that he had to carry them out". But survivors tell of a shooter who walked around shouting and laughing... someone who enjoyed committing this heinous violence. The manifesto is simply not trustworthy, and any use of it as a source should clearly be marked "according to Breivik's manifesto". The same applies to secondary sources based on the manifesto.
• Overall, I think the 2011 Norway attacks and Anders Behring Breivik articles gives a fairly good description of the topics. There are some things I would criticize, for instance, I think too much emphasis is put on "Impact on transportation", given that the actual impact was minimal. However, these were put together by a lot of people working independently, with limited time, and with only limited coordination. I thank the other editors who have worked on improving and maintaining these articles.

I am about to go on a Wikibreak. This is not due to any upset over how things were handled here at Wikipedia, but I am soon about to move, and will be without reliable access for a while. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:12, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#User:La goutte de pluie and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks,OpenInfoForAll (talk) 22:44, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• (Note to anyone reading: The case was rapidly dismissed by ArbCom, in the end also at the request of OpenInfoForAll. My sole involvement in the case is a single vote on WP:AN opposing a topic ban. Sjakkalle (Check!) 18:27, 14 September 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Hei Sjakkalle, (skal vi ta det på norsk?) Deletion rule G4 states that deletion due to reposting "excludes pages...to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies". The article has been revamped extensively since the original deletion request was posted and accusations of "single event" have been proven otherwise (in my opinion). Does the subject not in fact meet the Wikipedia:Notability (music) WP:MUSICBIO criteria, namely criterion 1: "published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, online versions of print media, and television documentaries" and criterion 12: "Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network". If you're in Norway you can verify this online... With all due respect, what is the problem? Mvh, Lapoderosa 08:59 23 October 2011 (Oslo) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.48.108.53 (talk) 07:00, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi, I am indeed in Norway (more specifically in Haugesund), but in general, discussions on the English Wikipedia should be in English even between Norwegians. (There are plenty of people who like to "eavesdrop" on user-talkpage conversations, and they prefer to see them in English.) Concerning the article, I did review Fr. Christoforos Schuff (deleted after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fr. Christoforos Schuff) and the deleted revision seemed to be identical to the version I deleted; hence G4 does apply. Reading through the AFD discussion, I see that your case probably has more merit than what the other participants gave you credit for. The NRK documentary that you provided is hardly a trivial source. However, the WP:GNG and WP:MUSIC notability guidelines are guidelines that have many exceptions, and the presence of independent sources does not guarantee inclusion in Wikipedia. Most people look for something a bit more, a person needs to have achievements that make the subject a probable figure that someone would look up. For a religious figure the person needs to be of a high rank (e.g. a bishop), or otherwise a common fixture that very many know about (e.g. Einar Gelius). Generally, priests of small churches don't meet that threshold, even when their occupation is unusual and even when they receive more coverage than what is normal for a person with that occupation. Having reviewed the first part of the documentary on the Youtube channel, I found the content rather interesting, but I can also see that coverage of a person's private life (childhood, family, use of public transportation, etc.) alone may be viewed as insufficient for a Wikipedia article, so I cannot unfortunately rule the AFD result as being out of line with previous precedent. Similarly, not everyone who lives in very isolated places in Norway receive coverage on Wikipedia, even if they are featured on Der ingen skulle tru at nokon kunne bu. Sorry about that. :-( Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:43, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• No problem and thanks for the answer! It was my first article on Wiki in English and I obviously started at the wrong end...anyway :o) Lapoderosa 23 October 2011, 12:44 (Oslo) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lapoderosa (talk • contribs) 10:45, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sjakkalle. Thank you for closing Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive228#Unblock and mentoring of TreasuryTag.

Would you consider assessing the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Indefinite block review: Colofac as well? The discussion has been enclosed with close templates but the consensus has not been assessed.

I have not interacted with the user being discussed and have not participated in the ban discussion, so I do not think it is improper for me to directly ask an uninvolved admin to close the discussion. Cunard (talk) 23:03, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: I asked for uninvolved review at WP:AN, and no one has assessed the consensus. A close is needed to determine whether WP:CBAN #2 was met. I did not know about this element of the policy until AGK (talk · contribs)'s edit here to User:TreasuryTag. Cunard (talk) 23:08, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for my absence the past hours. Discussions of this nature are among the things I close very rarely. They are time consuming, and the gravity of the decision due to the severity of the sanction imposes a heavy burden of responsibility. My understanding of the situation is that User:Jehochman closed the thread and since he did not unblock the user himself I assume that his intended result is "no unblock" (at least for the time being), although I agree that the assessment of the consensus should have been made there. My count shows about two thirds supporting the block, and some who supported the unblock only cite WP:ROPE indicating a skepticism that it well ultimately help. As such, the "no unblock" result is at the very least arguable. I also note that Daniel Case has declined the unblock request. At this point I don't think my interference would be of any benefit. Sjakkalle (Check!) 16:12, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking a look. I don't think Jehochman's close is sufficient; for a block discussion, the close does not provide finality and gives no indication that he assessed the consensus, as Swarm (talk · contribs) wrote here ("a consensus in support of an indef block means that a user is community banned, and that's a far different situation than simply closing a discussion and saying 'request unblock normally'"). Cunard (talk) 16:38, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see in the Bogo-Indian (and others) article links on the annotated games. So I decided to improve the articles adding such links on the reliable sources. Why you delete good links on the good annotated games of the strong players? I spent my time and energy to improve Wikipedia articles, but you destroyed my work. Why? I am not a specialist in Wikipedia. I saw in the article about Nebolsina such link and thought that is good idea to link annotated games. I see in other opening articles various External links, in Bird's Opening, King's Gambit, Danish Gambit, Bishop's Opening, Albin Countergambit. This article Bogo-Indian advertises two books and several persons, for instance Pedersen, Hansen and Andersson. This is advertising, non objective article. Why you do not delete this information about books and persons? Why you deleted the link on the good free and reliable source? 178.49.150.68 (talk) 12:15, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I removed the links because they did not appeat to meet the criteria at Wikipedia:External links. Unless a link is being used to cite a statement in an article, we need to be restrictive with the types of links that we allow, otherwise all other websites will be able to claim that Wikipedia should link to their site as well, and we would wind up with being a linkfarm instead of an encyclopedia. In an article on a popular chess opening, there will be hundreds of IM and GM games which could be worthy of attention, and singling out one of those games with a link to an annotated game does not provide a reader with enough additional insight. We avoid adding links merely because a reader might find them interesting. My concerns on this being "advertising" were in large part due to seeing that almost all the links referred to external articles authored by Boris Schipkov; and I was and am concerned that Wikipedia was being used here to promote that author. The books you mentioned in other articles are not advertising for the book. They are listed as references because those who wrote the article used them to find the relevant information for the statements in the article. The citations are needed to satisfy WP:CITE and WP:V guidelines and policies. Sjakkalle (Check!) 20:17, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for removing my signature from the edit to WP:POINT. That was a real blooper on my part. PSWG1920 (talk) 16:54, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, I have made mistakes like that myself. :-) Sjakkalle (Check!) 17:12, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sjakkalle, You recently deleted a page I created on the popular regional magazine Outside Bozeman. The page was flagged early on with problems that I thought were thoroughly addressed during the time it was up, so I'm confused about why it was deleted. Would you mind explaining this to me so that, A) I don't lose all faith in Wikipedia and its editors, and B) I don't make the same mistakes in the future. Thanks Fitzpatty88 (talk) 20:28, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion which ended with deletion is located at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Outside Bozeman. I closed the discussion as delete after determining that there was a rough consensus for deletion, and that the arguments were well founded in policy. In the determination I discounted a number of "votes" from very new accounts; when there are many such votes from new accounts in an AFD discussion, it is very frequently due to it being a group of friends "block voting", or even a single user with many accounts. In determining whether the arguments for deletion were well founded, the most relevant guideline is notability which is a very strong guideline which is applied often on a broad spectrum of subjects. The key text is:

If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list.

The article did contain some independent references, and some editors voted cautiously to keep based on them. However, there were many who disagreed with that, arguing that the mentions of Outside Bozeman were very brief. An important caveat in the notability guideline is that the coverage needs to be significant. Exactly what constitutes "significant" can be open to debate, but generally the article should either be about the subject, or at least contain some paragraphs about the subject. Also, coverage in media that is on a very local scale may also be insufficient since the coverage is more on the "human interest" level, and does not indicate that the magazine has significant impact. I went through the article references, and found that the delete voters had a point. The Washington Post mentioned Outside Bozeman only in passing, and much of the other coverage was at the very local scale, and sometimes not really about the magazine. For example this source was mainly about a dog contest, not its sponsor. These arguments were not addressed by any of the keep voters.

An important thing to remember is that very many editors have experienced seeing their article's deleted. This happens most often with novice editors, but it is a myth that deletion is a rebuke against the author who wrote it. Actually, by woking on adding sources, you were trying to do the right thing, so it is hard to really criticize you for making any major mistake.

It has in the last years become gradually more difficult to write a new article from scratch because the sourcing demands have been getting tighter, and many of the most obvious subjects which need an article have already received an article. However the vast majority of articles are underdevloped in some way or another, if you want to gain experience, finding good ways to expand an article of interest is always appreciated. Happy editing! Sjakkalle (Check!) 21:56, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response, I guess I'll just wait until the magazine gets coverage on a larger scale before I try again. I'd like to save the work and sources I compiled for the page but now that it has been deleted I don't know where I can find them. Is there a place I can retrieve/view a deleted page? Fitzpatty88 (talk) 19:22, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support at my recent successful RFA and at the last. Being now the new fellow in the fraternity of administrators, I will do my best to live up to the confidence shown in me by others, will move slowly and carefully when using the mop, will seek input from others before any action of which I might be unsure, and will try not to break anything beyond repair. Best, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:37, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please userify Rail transport in Burundi to User:Geo Swan/Rail transport in Burundi?

You closed the {{afd}} on this article. Participants there argued there were no railways there, thus no need for an article.

If I had been aware of the {{afd}} I would have weighed in.

There are WP:RS about plans to build a railway there.

• http://allafrica.com/stories/201110110892.html
• http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=1CFlAAAAIBAJ&sjid=FYgNAAAAIBAJ&pg=953,2268545&dq=lake-tanganyika+profile&hl=en

Several years ago I spent a number of hours trying to improve a couple of articles in some African countries. I can't remember how many years ago, or which countries.

Alternately, since there is now a redirect there, would you consider grafting the previous history to that of the redirect?

Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 02:25, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Sure, I have undeleted the history, so all the versions are available here. Good luck with your research! Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:29, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

St. David School (Richmond, California) an article that you voted on during a previous deletion debate that led to a no consensus decision nearly six years ago has been relisted for deletion. It should be noted that there have been a considerable amount of edits to the article since then. Therefore you may be interested in offering your commentary at the current deletion debateLuciferWildCat (talk) 04:54, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		This barnstar is awarded to everyone who - whatever their opinion - contributed to the discussion about Wikipedia and SOPA. Thank you for being a part of the discussion. Presented by the Wikimedia Foundation.

Dear Sjakkalle,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, where it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.

So a few things about the interviews:

• Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
• Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
• All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
• All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
• The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.

Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 07:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Young June Sah --Yjune.sah (talk) 20:36, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Michel Aerts. Since you had some involvement with the Michel Aerts redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). – hysteria18 (talk) 00:04, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello Sjakkalle. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click HERE to participate. Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 01:24, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apropos your closing of AfD/UEFA Euro 2012 schedule and AfD/UEFA Euro 2008 schedule: AfD/List of 2010 FIFA World Cup matches remains open with basically the same arguments applying as in the other AfDs. --78.35.244.186 (talk) 20:32, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up, I have closed the 2010 FIFA article as well now. Sjakkalle (Check!) 05:08, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --195.14.198.65 (talk) 09:11, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deeply concerned by these. The only thing weaker than this closing statement is the arguments presented to keep, which were not merely "mostly" rather vague but entirely non-arguments. It boggles the mind that this close was used as the yardstick to close the other two similar AfDs, which don't even have the "this is a current event" non-argument to support them. Very close to taking these to DRV. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:29, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Consistency in closings has its points because it is predictable for the public. Closing the them in different directions just because the participants are different from debate to debate leads to a messy jigsaw puzzle where some pieces are missing. (By the way, if I had voted, I would have preferred to merge these to their respective tournament articles. The title is an unlikely search term, but the contents are informative and should be easily accessible. The tables are short enough to be accommodated in the main article, and given its comprehensive structure, I think it would be a pretty welcome addition.) Sjakkalle (Check!) 17:31, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The question is why you assigned any weight at all to the "keep, useful" comments, which made up very nearly 100% of the opposition to the nomination. A nomination, by the way, which pointed out that all of the material in question was already included in the parent article, obviating the need for a merge at all. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:29, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that the debate was near 100% "keep, useful". There were several editors who presented reasonable arguments against deletion:

1. "Simple deletion is wrong because this contains a chronological summary, something not contained in the main article"
2. "this page presents in one convenient table all the results in the group stage"
3. "There is no equivalent on the main page, where the dates are not in chronological order but by bracket, there are no times for the first round matches, and results are harder to find and unwieldy to navigate."

Perhaps these arguments are not so good to justify a separate article, but they are all reasonable arguments for maintaining the table (which comprises the bulk of the article), and they are as such a good argument against outright deletion.

I find this as good a time as any to state my philosophy on "weighing" arguments on AFD. I am not among the administrators who assess each and every vote and tag them as "valid" or "invalid". Instead, I look for the best arguments that have been presented on either side and try to gauge the level of support they seem to have. As such, I assume that those who, in good faith, made poor arguments will endorse the good arguments that support their position. When I close an AFD contrary to what might appear to be the numerical consensus it is usually for a very firm policy-based reason that hasn't been accounted for (such as a violation of WP:V), or that absolutely every single argument on one side is a non-argument. The only votes I discard outright are those made in bad faith such as by sockpuppetry or WP:POINT-making. Sjakkalle (Check!) 16:14, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sjakkalle,

I would just like to thank you about what I think were kind words about my post at the Lamia AfD. (I'm not sure if 'good faith but misguided' is me or a generalisation, but I think that it is a positive attitude for someone to express to someone else they disagree with.) However, I'm a bit confused, as you seemed to be ruling that there was 'no consensus' on the AfD today, but the article has been replaced by a redirect. Did someone put in another request (for merger) that I'm not aware of? I'm not saying there should not be a merger, as some (but not all) editors were leaning that way, but shouldn't there be a template and another discussion? Big Mac (talk) 22:45, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As the AFD's closer, you might find this discussion worth following. BOZ (talk) 03:33, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, whether or not Big Mac's vote was based on policy was not something I looked all that hard into. I saw that reasonable arguments were made that there was sufficient sourcing to support the article. The "good faith" aspect refers to that you honestly argued for a result you wanted. (In contrast, I try to disregard "bad faith" votes that, for example, are made with the intention of being disruptive, such as voting "keep" in order to spite the nominator, or votes that have been made by sockpuppets.)

Redirect and merge discussions may be initiated in the wake of an AFD, especially if that option has been hinted at. The "no consensus" result is however neither an endorsement or an argument against such a result, as such I don't agree with the statement early on that two "no consensus" results is proof that there shouldn't be an article. The "no consensus" result is neutral on this, it basically means that there was no agreement on what to do, and that such agreement probably won't arise by letting the AFD debate continue to run.

(I took the liberty of correcting the link to the AFD in question, hope you don't mind.) Sjakkalle (Check!) 19:04, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Sjakkalle. I've always thought that Wikipedia should be about doing what is best for the world, rather than a kind-of lawyer-like application of Wikipedia's policies and how they have been interpreted in the past. Clearly we need policies, because things like unfair use of images can get Wikpedia into legal problems, and things like aggressive content about real-life people can put Wikipedia in a morally quesionable area, but I've seen several discussions where it seems like people seem to acknowledge that content is of interest to some readers, but wish to see it removed on a policy-technicality. (I've even seen other debates where sources are brought up, only for someone to try to argue that they are technically unusable. And the impression I get is that they don't want to look for better sources, but build up the case that the article has no valid underpinning sources, so that they can 'win 'at AfD.) I'm not suggesting that people that want to see content deleted are 'gaming the system', but it seems like the policy system has been built or altered to encourage certain methods of deconstructing sources, and deleting and merging articles down to the smallest footprint possible.

Folken actually suggested (on my talk page) that if I think that Wikpedia's policies are wrong, I should campaign to get them changed. To be honest, I'd rather spend time looking into how to improve content, rather than doing behind the scenes edits on AfD votes, but I do wonder how many AfD debates kill an article because it is not worth having an article and how many kill an article because policies are stacked against certain types of articles. Spam needs to go and genuinely useless articles need to go. But I do worry that we have editors working, in good faith, and making potentially useful, but slightly shoddy articles and the process seems to focus effort on AfD or merger debates, but not focus effort on improvement drives. (I see poor content going up and then coming back down, instead of being pushed up to Good Article standard.)

Over on WikiIndex, I found out about something called a wikiFactor which gives a scientific indication of how popular various wikis are and I wonder if it would be better if Wikipedia came up with a process to prove (once and for all) that a topic was significantly discussed in the real world (even in places that do not qualify as a secondary sources) and worth covering in an encyclopedia. I even think that the number of hits that a wikipedia article (or a redirect page) gets can help establish interest and imply notability. I think that, instead of people deciding they don't think something is important, and then others coming along to argue a 'legal defence' to stop an article getting 'the death penalty' we could look into scientifically proving that certain subjects rise above a certain 'notabilityFactor' and then make those 'immune' from AfD requests. Encyclopedic content needs to be verifiable, but I do think that the low-level chatter on a subject is relevant to its importance to the world.

But I also feel strongly that Wikipedia needs to have improvement debates, where the people who have worked on an article are recalled to ask them to look into ironing out bugs. I think that this sort of thing is much more improtant than AfD debates as it creates content that end-users will see.

Is there any sort of process Wikipedia has, where this sort of thing could be looked into? Because the current 'build and tear down' system seems to be a big waste of everyone's editing time to me. Wikipedia does not pay for its editors, but they are a finite resource, and need to be used to best effect.

PS: Thanks for fixing the link for me. Big Mac (talk) 01:51, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Based on meaning of your username, thought you might enjoy this:

Patzer Chess Tony Paletta (1980) A player must check if it is possible to do so but may choose if more than one check is available. A player may win by 'decimation' - ten consecutive checks. Hence perpetual check is a win for the player giving it. (Pritchard, ECV, p. 222). Ihardlythinkso (talk) 10:24, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An amusing variant, thanks for sharing! :-) Several years back I initiated the short article on the "opposite" variant: Checkless chess. Sjakkalle (Check!) 19:07, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's good! :) Reminded me of this Parton var where the K also can't be checked (and mating the K loses; getting mated wins!): V. R. Parton#Contramatic Chess. Cheers, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 01:52, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. In light of the restoration of the Sandra Fluke article, I would think the pre-deletion material in the article's talk page should be restored as well. What do you think? — Richwales 15:40, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That may be a good idea, but I don't think you need my help to do it. :-) Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:42, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since I was one of the people who favoured overturning the deletion, I was hesitant to take this action on my own. I'll take your response, however, as permission to go ahead. — Richwales 16:01, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I restored the talk page. I also tried to merge the new AfD history into the template at the top, but I think I goofed somewhere, and I need to go somewhere right now and won't be able to come back to fix it for at least a few hours. I'm wondering, in particular, whether the dates in the AfD history are supposed to be when an action was initially proposed, or when a final decision was made. Anyway, if you have the expertise and the time to have a look, maybe you can fix it more quickly and properly than I could. Thanks. — Richwales 16:26, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I have fixed the template. You were pretty close, but that template is a pretty tough one to use correctly. The dates for the discussions are the dates that the discussion was initiated. Sjakkalle (Check!) 19:19, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

		The Admin's Barnstar
		I found your closing comments on the Sandra Fluke DRV to be both well conceived and eloquently presented. Thank you for taking the time to wade through what was an emotional and lengthy discussion. Vertium When all is said and done 21:50, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sjakkalle. Because you participated in Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 June 5#User:Timeshift9, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Timeshift9 (2nd nomination). Cunard (talk) 06:03, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Your closure at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/You didn't build that was one of the most eloquent, effective adminsitrative actions I've ever seen. It's impressive that you could wade through all the comments and come up with as detailed a summary of a "no consensus" result as you did. — Francophonie&Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler) 23:23, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded! I was about to bestow this barnstar upon Sjakkalle as well, but I'm glad to see someone beat me to it! RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 23:52, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I Like this and agree entirely. AgnosticAphid talk 05:55, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for complements! I'll mention that the admin who inspired me to write up extensive rationales like this was Rossami, who made several informative rationales and closures some years back, and who had a strong ability to close discussions in a way that people would understand. I called on his advice more than a few times. :-) Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:34, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to let you know that I quoted something you wrote about the recent Star Wars DRV.[1] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:00, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not entirely sure if your comment was a complaint on the AFD and DRV itself, or about the way I closed the DRV. I sympathize with the point your making. Some years back I voted "keep" on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nathan Delfouneso (3rd nomination), after the player had signed up for Aston Villa and would inevitably play a professional game in the near future, and I did (and still do) consider its deletion to be an exercise in pointless bureaucracy, and the debates a, to use your words, "complete waste of the community's time", even when the setback was only temporary and Delfouneso most deservedly has an article now.

But regarding my closure on the Star Wars VII DRV, I didn't really feel I had much choice. The majority was opposed to restoring the article, and since the wording of the relevant guideline supports their point of view, I couldn't ignore that without making a supervote, something that I feel administrators should avoid making. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:18, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, it wasn't a complaint about you or anything you did. It was literally a courtesy notification. I made a post, and then after the fact, I realized that I had quoted you, and that it might be considered rude of me if I didn't notify you.

The only thing I would say about the DRV itself is that WP:NFF says "It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply", not "It is an accepted standard that editors must follow without occasional exceptions." I'd love to see the editors who !voted to not restore the article name a few films they think are exceptions to NFF. If they can't do this, they're not really following NFF. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:27, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK! Thanks for the courtesy. Guideline-wise, I would certainly be open for that there could be an exception for a film role in a series as notable as Star Wars, but I haven't studied the matter well enough to say what I would have voted had I participated in the AFD or DRV (my role in the DRV was simply to determine whether there was any consensus for overturning the result of the AFD). The advantage of a redirect over deletion is that the history remains in tact, so when the film's preparation has advanced sufficiently forward for the consensus to accept a separate article, it will be easy to restore the full content (although it will probably need major updating at that point). Sjakkalle (Check!) 17:37, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Sjakkalle/2011 and 2012. You were the one who deleted the article Sachi Matsumoto after a deletion discussion, right? I'm aware that I was among those who !voted for deleting the page, but after some time of thinking, I realized that the high standards I had for notability at the time were too high and impractical, and would mean the deletion of most articles on voice actors, despite most of them probably meeting WP:ENTERTAINER. And it appears that she did have major roles, which also satisfies WP:ENTERTAINER. Also, I was able to find this. I'm not sure if it is third-party coverage, but it would still be useful. If you don't mind, I'll probably take the article to deletion review. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:48, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi! I took a look at the discussion and the article in question, and note that the main reason for deletion was a lack of sources in the article, something that is especially urgent in biographies of living people. However, if that problem is fixed, the outcome may be different. I have no objection to you bringing this to DRV with additional sources that you may find. Also, although the article was severely underdeveloped and consisted mostly of a list of roles, I saw nothing in the article that was really objectionable, so I can restore the article temporarily to your userspace if you want to work with it before bringing it to DRV. Sjakkalle (Check!) 16:32, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Holmenkollen Line, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page T2000 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:58, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Sachi Matsumoto. 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. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:05, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

		Holiday Cheer
		Michael Q. Schmidt my talk page is wishing you Season's Greetings! This message celebrates the holiday season, promotes WikiLove, and hopefully makes your day a little better. Spread the seasonal good cheer by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Share the good feelings.

Hi, you closed this AfD on "keep" without providing any rationale, so I'm here to ask you if you could elaborate on your close ? Because there are very strong arguments in favor of deletion ([2], [3]) that point out that sources are either primary or trivial, and this remained completely unadressed by the "keep" side. Since our notability guideline states that sources should not be primary or trivial, "keep" comment appear quite weak and I don't see how this AfD could end on "keep".Folken de Fanel (talk) 20:21, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did not provide a rationale on this one because I thought the consensus was clear enough here for the result to be uncontroversial. In many cases I have given rationales if I think the closure had the potential of being very controversial, something which is often the case since those I have closed have tended to be backlogged discussions.

Regarding this closure, WP:GNG is a guideline, which is interpreted by the local consensus of editors who chose to participate in the discussion. In contrast, a core policy such as the verifiability policy can be a deal breaker if an article in its entirety fails that threshold.

Although I respect your view that the source provided by Torchiest is insufficiently significant, there were several good faith editors who figured that this source combined with the other sources were enough for a separate article. "Significant" is a value judgement, and not a bright line rule.

I don't "count votes" as such, but it is hard to say that there is a consensus for something if there is a large majority against it, especially when their views also have some merit. While I have on rare occasions been forced to "overrule" the local consensus due to them ignoring the verifiability policy, overruling the community's interpretation of notability guidelines would violate the WP:CONSENSUS policy and quickly be determined to be a "supervote".

You were joined only by the nominator (who provided a deletion rationale of the type that was commonly accepted in 2005, but is considered ridiculously brief and vague by today's standards) in supporting deletion. Your rationale for deletion was much better, but it didn't garner any support, and with that in mind, I had to rule that the consensus was for keeping the article. I would have closed differently if the consensus had been with you. Sjakkalle (Check!) 20:50, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your main concern is to avoid looking like you supervoted, but in my opinion, you are protected by WP:LOCALCONSENSUS which states: "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope. Wikipedia has a higher standard of participation and consensus for changes to policies and guidelines than to other types of articles."

To me, this sounds like a single AfD cannot decide that some GNG criteria (for example "no primary sources") simply do not apply to roleplaying games articles. And though you're right in that articles can benefit from occasional exceptions to guidelines, both WP:LOCALCONSENSUS and WP:NOTVOTE stress the importance of argumentation over pure numbers. And from what you just told me (my apologies if I'm mistaken), at a personal level you don't seem to be convinced there is a good reason to make an exception here.

I understand that a change to "delete" would be too much, but could I persuade you to go at least for "no consensus without prejudice to renomination or merge" ? I think it would be a good way to acknowledge both the high number of keep supporters, and the strength of the delete arguments (with which you seem to agree), without change to actual outcome.

To convince you further, there is actually another user, Hekerui, in favor of a merge over conservation, and even Web Warlock who recommanded a keep and yet said "it might be stronger to merge it with the main Forgotten Realms article".Folken de Fanel (talk) 22:03, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning my opinion on the article itself, I have no strong opinion wither way as to which side I agree with. What matters is that both sides have merit, but one side (the keep side in this case) had stronger support in the community.

I disagree that the WP:LOCALCONSENSUS section is all that relevant here. Although I did use the phrase "local consensus" above, the phrase in that section of the policy refers to something slightly different, namely a small group of editors using WikiProjects trying to establish guidelines at odds with the sitewide policies. WikiProjects are open to everyone, but they tend to lack the widespread input from the the general community needed to produce anything binding. (People can indeed discuss policy and how it relates to relevant articles at WikiProjects, but reaching a consensus for something there does not mean that the ideas will be accepted by the wider community.) AFD discussions on the other hand are the exact venue for the entire community to determine what the consensus is for that particular article.

I am sorry, but I feel that there was a rough consensus to keep the article on that AFD, so I don't feel it is appropriate to call this a "no consensus" if there is one. (I saw the "merge" vote, as well, which is an endorsement of keeping the content but putting it in another article. That would be an editorial decision that can be considered outside the AFD.) But the practical difference between "keep" and "no consensus" is miniscule, because neither result is with prejudice against renomination, and in both cases it is considered common courtesy to let at least a few months pass before renominating to allow for improvements to the article and to avoid giving an impression of someone repeatedly nominating until they get the result they want. Perhaps with a "keep" instead of a "no consensus", one should wait a bit longer before renominating, and one would expect the re-nominator to spend more effort in addressing the points made in the previous discussion. Sjakkalle (Check!) 22:27, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Happy new year

I have taken your advise and posted to the talk pages in the disability article.

Thanks