User talk:Stifle/Archive 0510c

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Reporting user:The Cat and the Owl

I'm here to notify that User:The Cat and the Owl breached the ARBMAC sanction imposed, by failing to clarify the following reverts with a minimum of 50 words in the talkpage: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. I presume that The Cat and the Owl was aware of the sanction but chose to ignore it. Other users (user:kedadi and user:Athenean (rollbacker) got bans for that. Thank you!--Sulmues Let's talk 03:08, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm... Really, which of the above are "Balkans-related" articles with the sense that you Stifle meant?? Nice try to get me blocked from everything Sulmues, what a good "cooperator" you are... Ξένος ὢν ἀκολούθει τοῖς ἐπιχωρίοις νόμοις. (talk) 04:09, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
I endorsed the 1RR because I wanted to follow it, which is what I'm doing. We are suffering the absence of user:Kedadi because he is our rollbacker in the Albania WikiProject. It would be nice if you just followed your sanction rather than ignoring it and be ironic here by following user:Athenean's example of incivility in my talk page [9]. If user:The Cat and the Owl doesn't get banned, I will gently request that user:Kedadi's ban be remitted. --Sulmues Let's talk 14:25, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Stifle, in his effort to get me blocked, Sulmues forgot to report to you some more "Balkan-related" articles which I edited, so I will do that for him:

  • [10] [11] Hermes was Greek god, so according to Sulmues it must be a "Balkan-related" article I edited, so I should be blocked for that.
  • [12] Ethics is a Greek word, so according to Sulmues another "Balkan-related" article I edited, so I should be blocked for that.
  • [13] Clergy, another Greek word, according to Sulmues another "Balkan-related" article I edited, so I should be blocked for that.
  • [14] Paranoia, another Greek word, according to Sulmues another "Balkan-related" article I edited, so I should be blocked for that.
  • [15] Souvlaki, according to Sulmues another "Balkan-related" article I edited, so I should be blocked for that.
  • [16] Kaleidoscope, another Greek word, according to Sulmues another "Balkan-related" article I edited, so I should be blocked for that.
  • [17] Climate of Greece, according to Sulmues another "Balkan-related" article I edited, so I should be blocked for that.
  • [18] Hypatia, a Greek philosopher, according to Sulmues another "Balkan-related" article I edited, so I should be blocked for that.
  • [19] Eczema, another Greek word, according to Sulmues another "Balkan-related" article I edited, so I should be blocked for that.
  • [20] Encyclopedia, another Greek word, according to Sulmues another "Balkan-related" article I edited, so I should be blocked for that.
  • [21] Melanie, a Greek name, according to Sulmues another "Balkan-related" article I edited, so I should be blocked for that.
  • [22] The longest word in literature is Greek, according to Sulmues another "Balkan-related" article I edited, so I should be blocked for that.
  • [23] Pea comes from Greek, according to Sulmues another "Balkan-related" article I edited, so I should be blocked for that.
  • [24] Pasta comes from Greek, oh no, another "Balkan-related" article I edited, so according to Sulmues I should be blocked for that.
  • [25] Chyme comes from Greek too, another "Balkan-related" article I edited, according to Sulmues I should be blocked for that.
  • [26] Proboscis, a Greek word, according to Sulmues another "Balkan-related" article I edited, so I should be blocked for that.
  • [27] Parasitism, a Greek word, here a created a hole new section, perhaps I deserve to be blocked for over a year for that!
  • [28] Pre-Greek substrate, according to Sulmues another "Balkan-related" article I edited, so I should be blocked for that.
  • [29] Protagonist, a Greek word, according to Sulmues another "Balkan-related" article I edited, so I should be blocked for that.
  • [30] Thorax is Greek too, according to Sulmues another "Balkan-related" article I edited, so I should be blocked for that.
  • [31] Phobia, a Greek word, according to Sulmues another "Balkan-related" article I edited, so I should be blocked for that.
  • [32] Moira, Greek given name, according to Sulmues another "Balkan-related" article I edited, so I should be blocked for that.
  • [33] Monotheism, a Greek word, according to Sulmues another "Balkan-related" article I edited, so I should be blocked for that.

Now let's get serious: The only edit in which Sulmues could claim I violated your sanction notice (and he forgot to report to you) is this one, which happened only because I did it mechanically, therefore fast, so I forgot it could be an actual Balkan-related article in a sense that we all understand. Nevertheless it was a correct revert, since the anonymous user simply vandalized the article by changing the word "Greek" with the word "Illyrian", contrary to the sources!!! Of course, some how Sulmues didn't notice that vandalism by the anonymous user... Now why could that be, I wonder...

PS: Sulmues, in his strive to get me blocked, he reports this edit to you, which I have nothing to do with. The Cat and the Owl (talk) 15:12, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I meant this. I chose the reverts that are Balkan related. Greek-originated words are of no interest and have no Greek copyright, they are just words. As the sanction notice that you had clearly ignored says "Balkans-related" is to be construed widely. If you are not certain whether a certain article is Balkans-related, assume that it is. I don't know how more clear than that a sanction notice can be. --Sulmues Let's talk 15:27, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Of course, Hephaestus is Greek, so "Balkans-related", I should assumed it, shouldn't I? :) The Cat and the Owl (talk) 17:59, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
I have asked several people on multiple occasions to report violations of arbitration remedies, topic bans, revert restrictions, etc., etc., to WP:AE and not here. I repeat that request. Stifle (talk) 08:31, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

peter holmes a court

The user with the agenda is back again. and the external link is back up. Berkinstock (talk) 04:02, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Image review

Would you like to do the image review for Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Madonna (entertainer)/archive1? Just asking. --Legolas (talk2me) 06:04, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Courtesy note

You are receiving this note because of your participation in WT:Revision deletion#Community consultation, which is referred to in Wikipedia:VPR#Proposal to turn on revision deletion immediately (despite some lingering concerns). –xenotalk 14:16, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 17 May 2010

Administator-only discussion sections at WP:GS/CC/RE

Hi there Stifle. As you are an active administrator at Arbitration Enforcement, I would appreciate it greatly if you could comment at Wikipedia:GS/CC/RE#Lar.2C_NuclearWarfare.2C_The_Wordsmith.2C_Polargeo. Thanks, NW (Talk) 01:45, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Khojaly Massacre‎

Hi. Thanks for your intervention with this article. I think protection of the page was unnecessary. The article was edit warred at by 1 person, who is now blocked and advised to follow WP:DR. Also, if you are interested in the topic, we would appreciate your opinion at WP:RSN, where the discussion about the source was taken to. Thanks. Grandmaster 13:39, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Any uninvolved admin is welcome to unprotect the page if they feel it appropriate to do so. Stifle (talk) 13:42, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. Grandmaster 14:27, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Block those engaged with the edit warring, why blocking the entire article from being edited? I was about making uncontroversial edits to find out that the article is locked. Ionidasz (talk) 15:37, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Protection will make people discuss rather than revert-war. Stifle (talk) 15:40, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
This may be true for controversial edits, article-ban editors who are engaged in edit warring and only allow them to discuss in the talkpage for a certain amount of time. Why everyone should be punished, including those who will make edits which neither side will have problem with? Ionidasz (talk) 16:28, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Because I think it'll clear up the multifaceted edit war most effectively. If I block someone, they could just come back and start edit warring again. With the page protected, you can come to a consensus, all of you, and request unprotection once it's sorted out. Stifle (talk) 17:49, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello Stifle. The same edit war continues after a "bold" and controversial edits of the article of Karabakh Khanate. Can you act the same way, to invite those editors who make it to the discussion page where there are proofs from WP:RSs against those edits/changes. I hope this will encourage them to engage in WP:DR rather than continue making the same edit over and over. Thanks Aregakn (talk) 13:01, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

My talk page is not dispute resolution. If editors are misbehaving, please bring it up at the appropriate venue (WP:AE, WP:ANI, or otherwise). I've asked you many times not to post complaints about other users here, and I am going to have to start deleting them without action if you don't stop. Stifle (talk) 13:03, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your warning but I was not complaining. I was asking to block the article the same way you did with khojaly Massacres article to invite editors to discuss. Quote from what you have written: "Because I think it'll clear up the multifaceted edit war most effectively. If I block someone, they could just come back and start edit warring again. With the page protected, you can come to a consensus, all of you, and request unprotection once it's sorted out." If you act different in 2 similar cases, that's already a different issue probably worth more attention. Regards Aregakn (talk) 13:08, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
You can post that at WP:RFPP. Stifle (talk) 13:48, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for the proper suggestion. This is what was done at 13:36 after reading according directions on wiki. Hope next time my request will be made by me (or maybe perceived by you) in an according manner and in good faith. Regards Aregakn (talk) 16:20, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Richard Eastell

I would be grateful for a reply to a query on the article talk page, here. thanks, Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:31, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks -- I have now enabled email. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:47, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
I can't send an attachment through emailuser, which is why I need you to email me at which stage I can reply to you, attaching the document. Stifle (talk) 14:58, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Email now sent; my apologies, I haven't used wiki-email before. thanks, Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:30, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Email received, many thanks. That text is available on-line here; it's more of a correction than a retraction, but I will let it sit for now as suggested. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:38, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the message today regarding Eastell. I haven't encountered this kind of editing before and would be grateful for a bit of advice. Some of the material is unsourced; other portions are based on self-published sources; some of the added external links don't seem to meet WP:EL; etc. In short, I would like to edit. Can I assume that there's nothing special about the material you have added (at his request) that somehow places it off limits or privileged? I'd be surprised, but I'd like to make sure I'm not violating a guideline that I'm not aware of. thanks, Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:48, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Of course you're welcome to edit it. I couldn't stop you even if I wanted to. Stifle (talk) 13:21, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Aregakn appeal

Hi Stifle. Aregakn was placed on an edit summary restriction by you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive62#Hittit, unless I'm being dense and misreading. That is the sanction that he is appealing against in the pending AE thread. There seems to be some discrepancy between what I understand the appeal to be about and what you are commenting on, so please set me straight if I am not making sense. Regards, AGK 15:58, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Deletion policy advice requested

To User:NuclearWarfare, User:Fences and windows, and User:Stifle

I'm interested in discussing when we userfy and incubate articles, but while doing some review of our deletion policy articles, I noticed a need for some technical copy editing to tighten up the wording of the existing articles. (For example, some options are listed in our deletion policy that are not mentioned in XFD and vice versa.) I'm not sure where to start such a discussion—whether it belongs on the discussion page of Deletion policy, with notices on XFD talk pages, or someplace central like WP:VPI. I considered, and rejected WP:VPP, as I am discussing only copy editing, not policy changes, at this time. I picked three sysops I respect to ask for advice.

My draft writeup is here Deletion policy observations--SPhilbrickT 13:08, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I was going to say WT:DP, but you've already gone for that. Stifle (talk) 14:22, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bullshido.net (4th nomination)

Hi, Stifle. Because you participated in Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 October 2#Bullshido.net, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bullshido.net (4th nomination). Cunard (talk) 21:18, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muir Skate Longboard Shop (2nd nomination)

Hi, Stifle. Because you participated in Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 May 12#Muir Skate Longboard Shop, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muir Skate Longboard Shop (2nd nomination). Cunard (talk) 02:08, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

S Marshall

S Marshall has agreed to go through Hell Week again, would you care to nominate or co-nominate? Fences&Windows 11:00, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Certainly. Stifle (talk) 11:13, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Richard Flanagan

Seems to have an inordinate interest in his own article - although your edit alluding to an OTRS issue - have fiddle with it a bit - could you possibly have a re-visit sometime? SatuSuro 12:32, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I will write that again - it seems richard has done a number of otrs items over time about various edits on the article - just checking it then it was a mess and still is - perhaps it needs checking against the otrs message and maybe further cleanup ? SatuSuro 12:55, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
I've cleaned it up a bit; if I get more issues on the OTRS ticket I'll address them. Stifle (talk) 14:27, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks SatuSuro 00:41, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

File:May 23 train derailment.jpg

Apologies if this is inappropriate.

You recommended the deletion of this file due to it not being used in any article, however it was removed from 2010 Jiangxi train derailment due to its nomination, so as I'm not going to edit war over it this creates a situation of circular logic.

Therefore do you mind reconsidering your position if you don't have another reason for it to be deleted? Thanks. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:28, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

OK. Stifle (talk) 18:32, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks :). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:49, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Stifle, I dont know if im doing this "talk" thing correctly, so sorry if this is a duplicate

Hi, i understand that I reposted. I am Behdad Sami himself. Im not trying to fool anybody. The person that submited the deletion review is someone who has been harrasing me on social websites for a couple days now. I have put up more than enough evidence and links that show what the wiki page on me claims. I dont know what this person has against me and it makes no sense because I dont know him. I have no idea why my page is even under review. Like I said before, there are 1000's of links on me on google, along with 4 different magazine sources, Gatorade reality show, but the biggest of all is the NBA itself claims me as the first pro iranian basketball player to play in the USA. I have 8 ref. links on my page that show everything I am saying. As for the pictures of me, those are my personal pictures, off of my computer. I (Behdad Sami) have full rights to those and I wish to use them on wikipedia and share with the world so I give full permission for them to be used. Could you please help me out with removing the deletion request? It doesnt make any sense why after 3 years of this page being here, now all of a sudden someone wants to remove it? After all the articles and links and proof there is out there and everything Also, I checked every single guidline and policy and im 100% covered under all of them. I checked the basketball nobility section which states as long as i have played 1 or more games in the ABA or NBA, and I have played much more than 1 game in the ABA. As far as everything else thats claimed in the wikipedia page, everything is listed in the 8 ref links on the page. I dont want to lie or fool anyone, everything I have said was the 100% truth and I just want to make sure my page does not get deleted. Ive worked very hard to accomplish what I have and I have listed all the evidence and proof that I feel is needed. If more links or articles are needed I can even post myself in a tv interview being interviewd about being the worlds first pro iranian bball player and everything else. I just dont understand what this one guy has against me and why he would do this. He has been harrasin me on twitter the last couple days and I had my twitter suspended, and now this. It really is absurd of wikipedia decides to take this page off especially with all the ref links and proof i have shown and listed. It is bigger than me, its iranian pro history that they would be taking something from. I have shown, it makes no sense why there would even be a discussion about wether or not to remmove it? What more can I do? Looking to hear back from you soon. (sorry again if this is a duplicate, i have no idea how this talk thing works or if you even get it, I sent you an email just incase)

P.S : What do you need me to do for the pictures?? I dont understand what I have to do —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoopindreams (talk • contribs) 11:30, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


-Thank you Sir

-Behdad Sami --Hoopindreams (talk) 11:23, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

The best thing you could do right now is disengage from the discussion and stop posting more and more comments. Leave other people contribute.
Regarding the photographs, you need to get the owner of the copyright of the photographs (that'll be the photographer, generally) to email permissions-en@wikimedia.org confirming that they are public domain. Stifle (talk) 11:48, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thank you for your feedback and info. I appreciate it and will take it into full consideration. I wont comment anymore and will leave it to the admin to make the right choice. I will also get the photographers email and have him email them to the link. One last question, what does (UTC) stand for?--Hoopindreams (talk) 12:01, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Universal Coordinated Time. Since Wikipedia's a worldwide website, we don't favour US time or that of any other country. It's currently equivalent to Eastern Daylight Time + 4 hours. Stifle (talk) 12:54, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JC Crissey

Hi Stifle, would you please reconsider your "no consensus" closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JC Crissey? While the votecount suggests a no consensus, none of the keeps is based on sources. We have one IP stating that he is well-known (no evidence for this), two (again including an IP) claiming to have found coverage in sources, when all there is are his name in a list of names that worked on a film, and Dream Focus who only gives his opinion ("Working in a prominent role on notable films, makes you notable."), but no facts. No good reason is given by any of them why WP:BIO wouldn't apply in this case. The last delete, by Off2riorob, perfectly illustrates the problem with this article. Fram (talk) 11:32, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree and have deleted the article. Stifle (talk) 11:45, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! I almost started the DRV, but then remembered that one should ask the closing admin first. It seemed to me to be timewasting procedure (yeah right, like any admin will ever overturn his own decision ;-)), but you have proven me wrong. Fram (talk) 11:48, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Neglected Mario Characters

As a contributor to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neglected Mario Characters, you may be interested to know I have renominated this article for deletion. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neglected Mario Characters (2nd nomination). Robofish (talk) 15:29, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Google test

Wikipedia:Google searches and numbers is still marked as a proposal. It looks like a supplement of Wikipedia:Search engine test to me, should it be marked as such? Fences&Windows 16:04, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, I knew I had written that essay some time ago but could not find it.
I would say WP:SET is a how-to guide on finding sources, but WP:GNUM should be an actual guideline on using Google in the deletion process. Stifle (talk) 16:07, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Di-fails NFCC

Template:Di-fails NFCC has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Fleet Command (talk) 18:45, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Deletion closing of GetEducated.com

Hi. I just wanted to point out that in the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GetEducated.com there were a couple of people (myself included) who recommended userfying the article. I believe the author of the article is trying to be a good-faith editor in spite of the conflict of interest, so it would be appropriate, I think, to move the article to User:Immaletufinish/GetEducated.com for maintenance by this user until this borderline-notable company crosses the border into notability. Would you mind doing that?

Also, while I know it's inappropriate to edit closed deletion discussions, I have just done so, having discovered a previous deletion discussion for the same article, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Geteducated.com (lowercase e in "educated" that time), that nobody in the recent discussion knew about. So I added a note at the top of the recent discussion, for the record. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:06, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll do so if User:Immaletufinish asks. Stifle (talk) 19:22, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Deletion reply

I just wanted to personally reply to your comments. I would reply there, but the discussion is closed. Before this article was nominated for deletion for a third time I was unaware that it had ever been nominated for deletion before. Now that I know it is in need of repair, I will make an effort to repair it. There are other editors that have also claimed they will help make corrections, so it will be improved soon and there will be no need for a 4th deletion nomination. You seem to comment a lot on deletion logs, so maybe you can do something about the suggestion I have:

For articles that are nominated for deletion, but are not deleted, and have need for repair something should be placed on their talk page to outline what needs to be fixed. If the problems are not fixed before the next nomination for deletion then it is possible to argue that the article will never be fixed because editors have ignored the warning of what needs to be fixed. But in this particular case ignorance was not bliss and editors were unaware of the problems that needed fixing. Spidey104contribs 14:39, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Good idea. There is a tag {{afd-merge to}} which covers this idea for mergers. Perhaps something additional could be brought in for cleanup. Stifle (talk) 15:56, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, something like that would probably work. It would hopefully make discussions about articles previously nominated a lot easier, or preferably non-existant since the problems will be fixed. Spidey104contribs 17:59, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

File:AFJP.jpg

I just deleted File:AFJP.jpg based on ticket 2009062310067779, one of yours. Could you double check I haven't missed anything? Basically, it seems that it has been released only for Wikipedia use, the uploader has not understood this and gone ahead and uploaded it, with the dud ticket. J Milburn (talk) 23:57, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

That is fine. Stifle (talk) 08:04, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 24 May 2010

Jeffrey Street Kirribilli

Thanks for keeping. I put a lot of effort into Jeffrey Street over the past week.

I am a newbie. Do I remove the "This article is being considered for deletion ..." sign at the top of the page?

Regards. AWHS (talk) 12:54, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Normally the person closing the AFD removes the notice. Since I forgot to, I've removed it now, but it would have been OK for you to as well. Stifle (talk) 13:00, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your help. Very excited to be a published article creator on wikipedia. It was a bit of a shock to be nominated for deletion 20 minutes after creating my first article. I had no idea that such a process even existed. Rgds from Australia. AWHS (talk) 13:30, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

bukisa.com spam whitelist request

Hi there,

I've post some more information as to why I think the online article I want to use should be whitelisted. I hope it is sufficient. ISD (talk) 13:09, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

My talk page

Thank you for the reminder. I have recently come back from a 3 month break, and quite forgot that my talk page was protected. It is now unprotected. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 19:33, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppet alert

I don't know if you handle sockpuppets, but may HerbEA2 (talk · contribs) seems to be exhibiting obnoxious behavior. Furthermore, he earlier used usernames HerbEA (talk · contribs) and HerbEA1 (talk · contribs) and has recently butchered the sockpuppet report against him (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HerbEA1). Just a heads up. Thanks. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 10:48, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't. You should post your concerns to WP:SPI. Stifle (talk) 11:07, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:CP backlog question

I noticed you removed {{adminbacklog}} from Wikipedia:Copyright problems when there were 5 days still to work through. As I'm currently writing a bot to (among other things) automatically change the tag based on the number of days pending, how many days would you say constitutes a backlog? VernoWhitney (talk) 15:15, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Looks like I goofed. I've put it back. Stifle (talk) 15:20, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Sorry if I was being unclear. I didn't actually have a problem with the removal, since at the moment at least it's really only the copyright regulars who pitch in either way, I was really just looking for your opinion on an appropriate distinction between normal and backlogged. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:31, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Distributed element filter FA

Per this comment, would you mind providing an image review of Distributed element filter. Thank you kindly. SpinningSpark 17:32, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Looking for feedback on my thought process and tentative decision

I haven't much experience with CSD, so looking for advice from someone with more experience.

The draft article is User:Nathanburrblair/Hamlet Homes

Upon reading it, my first reaction was G11. No evidence included in the article suggesting that anyone has written about the company. It contains peacock terms, and reads more like a PR brochure than an encyclopedia article.

On the other side of the ledger is the fact that it is a user draft, not an actual article. The editor does think it is ready (I ran across it reviewing Category:Requests to move a userspace draft. It clearly is not ready, but don't we want to encourage editors to keep not-quite-ready material in user space until it is ready?

To determine if it is G11, I need to decide it is "exclusively promotional". I'd say yes, but not a slam dunk, not as bad as some I've seen. Then, I have to determine whether it "would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic". Seems like the answer is yes. Some of the words in the draft might survive to a real article, but not many, so it probably does have to be fundamentally rewritten.

However, I decided to check for sources, and looked at: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL The results were a little richer than I would have guessed. While many of the entries are not much more than a newspaper reprinting a press release, there are quite a number of mentions in reliable sources. Not much in Scholar, but a number of hits in books.

This is swaying me against CSD. While a lot of work is needed, there are hints that there is material enough to do the work. Assuming that the editor is probably connected, maybe they won't do enough of a job to survive AfD, but a CSD is not an assessment of a likely Afd, it is a decision that in no way shape or form should this get to AfD.

My current thinking is to send to note to the editor on their talk page, noting the serious deficiencies, and suggesting that they improve the draft, and then add for feedback at Requests for feedback before trying to move to article space. I'll wager long odds it will never be sufficiently improved, but I don't think that's our call - if it has any chance of surviving, our responsibility is to inform the editor what steps are needed.

In theory, a G11 assessment is made independent of whether the page is in article space or in user space, but my current thinking is that this would be a G11 in article space (we do not want it in its current state as an article in WP, and while WP is a work in progress, there are limits) but cut a little more slack in user space (noindexed) and spell out the deficiencies.--SPhilbrickT 13:14, 30 May 2010 (UTC) (Addendum - I wanted to find someone who was quite conversant with CSD rules, so I went to WP:DRV and picked the first name I recognized. if you don't want to take the time to address this, no problem, I'll ask someone else. I did read your FAQ, but I'm not asking at the help desk because I'm not looking for the opinion of the first person that chooses to respond, I'm looking to improve my understanding of policies, so I want to make sure I ask someone with a very solid understanding of the issues.)--SPhilbrickT 14:42, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

That's all OK. My way of dealing with the article would be to let it be for a week or two, then leave a message to the author, and if it's left abandoned for a couple of months, list it at MFD. The first step is optional.
As you say, G11 should be independent of the namespace of a page, but it is fair and correct to extend extra latitude to userspace pages. Stifle (talk) 08:31, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your feedback. I've welcomed the editor, and suggested improvements. we'll see what happens. I'm keeping a list of similar user space articles, and plan to nominate for MfD if no activity for six months.--SPhilbrickT 14:40, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lost on mars

Hi. You relisted this for debate five days ago, but surely it has gone on long enough? As long as it is open, that actress' brother (the 99 IP) is just to keep going and going and going, and its getting really ridiculous. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:26, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Looks like someone else has beaten me to it. Stifle (talk) 08:29, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Notice

A discussion in which you offered comment has been returned to deletion discussion. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 19:42, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Deletion review for User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/Cypress-Norway relations

An editor has asked for a deletion review of User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/Cypress-Norway relations. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:49, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Stifle/Archive_0510c&oldid=1144611469"