Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2

Don't hesitate to get in touch if you have questions, and try not to get too stressed out by the process. Best of luck... WjBscribe 08:45, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any news on the date where the merger of the lines are going to take place? The article will have to undergo a very substantial rewrite post-merger in order to retain its FA status. - Best regards, Mailer Diablo 12:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the info. I guess it should be somewhere in late-November 2007 then. - Cheers, Mailer Diablo 12:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry you felt it necessary to oppose my recent RfA, which did not succeed. I will attempt to get more experience in the main namespace and the Wikipedia namespace and will try again for RfA in two month's time. I hope I will have satisfied your concerns by then, but if not, please comment as you feel you should. Thanks for participating in my RfA. -- Cobi^(t|c|b|cn) 08:22, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Captioned

Congratulations, I have closed your RfA as successful and you are now a sysop! If you have any questions about adminship, feel free to ask me. Please consider messaging me on IRC for access to the #wikipedia-en-admins channel. Good luck! --Deskana (talk) 16:09, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations - unanimous support! Don't hesitate to get in touch if you have any questions about using your new admin buttons... WjBscribe 20:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for all the support, espcially yours, for nominating me in the first place!--Alasdair 19:35, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, congratulations on your successful RfA, and welcome to the ranks. I look forward to working with you as an administrator.

Now the bad news (well, not really) ... the first user query about one of your administrator actions can be found here. I suggested that the user contact you, but you might want to reach out to him first. Regards, Newyorkbrad 23:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking for the reason why Tealeaf was deleted, your note left was ambiguous -- deleted "Tealeaf" ‎ (Deleted because of CSD spam) The posting style followed accepted guidelines and looking at traffic from the site this page was by no means used as a lead generator. We have other mentions on wikipedia that DO drive interested people. This page served a solid purpose as a company backgrounder. Please both reconsider your action and advise the reason for removal. thanks davidewart 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Note that this has been brought to DRV. — xDanielx ^T/_C 06:01, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, it looks like David did properly attempt to notify you, but the GET data got lost since the "&"s turned to "&"s in the URL, so a new page was created (diff). — xDanielx ^T/_C 06:12, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the matter's been resolved, I've asked for it to be undeleted, so it's back.--Alasdair 17:48, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. — xDanielx ^T/_C 18:56, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've clearly been a little busy recently (congratulations on the RFA), but I wanted to point out I'd left some comments on this FAC, and was wondering if you would like to respond to them? J.Winklethorpe ^talk 23:33, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hi, i am well aware that being a hoax isn't a speedy deletion criterion. what is one, however, is being an album by a previously-deleted or non-existent artist, which i clearly stated with the phrase "Unsourced album page of non-notable artist". you will notice that JC is a dab page and not a rapper, nor does it include any reference to a rapper of that name. also note that the other bogus album articles 'by' this artist were speedy deleted with no contest. but not to worry, i'll put it thru an unnecessary AfD as you wish. cheers, tomasz. 15:38, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

edit > so is {{db-repost}}. cheers, tomasz. 15:41, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, it's gone now.--Alasdair 15:42, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the block, they were really getting out of hand. Dolive21 10:21, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since you closed the discussion saying the image does significantly increase reader's understanding of the topic, could you explain how it does so? It seems to me that no person at the discussion gave any explanation of how this image increases understanding in a way words cannot, or a reason why its omission is detrimental to a reader's understanding. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:00, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been expecting queries about that closure. The following two points in the rationale were the deciding factor around the keep:

• The image gives immediate identification for a reader of the section entitled "Controversy" in the article on intelligent design.
• This image adds explanatory power through the intended first visual impact for the intended audience of the magazine.

Your argument in the discussion was that "impact" does nothing to improve a reader's understanding. In my opinion it does. An editor may try his best to describe the controversy using text, but in the end, people are less likely to understand such complicated prose, if the image is replaced by a detailed description. With the presence of the picture, the impact alone could stimulate them, causing the idea should jump right into their heads. I understand that many smart people exist in this world that can visualize the message in their heads, but in reality, most others don't. Hence the closing statement.--Alasdair 13:31, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The issue with "identification" is that it is not a use that the NFCC permits; section titles are perfectly sufficient to identify sections. What exactly do you think the "impact" of this image explains to the reader? I don't understand what fact about intelligent design the image conveys to the reader, apart from the fact there was a story in Time about it. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The focus here is that identification alone is not used to justify the use of the image. The identification simply adds to reinforce the more important reason: That impact of a picture stimulates people to think deeper about the subject.--Alasdair 13:51, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like I'm not phrasing my question correctly. What fact or information about the abstract concept of intelligent design does this image convey? Or are you saying that any image that encourages the reader to think deeper about the topic is acceptable? Our policies require minimal use of nonfree images, and just "encouraging thought" doesn't seem like a minimal use. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:57, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, that one should have been handled by an admin who normally works with IFD - Howcheng, Nv8200p, Quadell, Mecu, etc. This is a highly contentious issue and your close looks more like you are injecting your own preference rather than applying the policies. IFD, unlike AFD, is less about consensus and more about policy. If an image violates policies, it goes - if it doesn't, it stays. --B 23:15, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good job Alasdair. I'm glad someone around here has balls and doesn't kowtow to the right. Ignore the complaints. You have support from a strong contingent of admins and editors. Be brave, don't let certain admins who have their own agenda bully you. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:24, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're a new admin, and a few mistakes are normal. The Intelligent design article is already unusual as one of a very few articles that has multiple nonfree cover images on it; this is mostly due to a large number of vocal editors there. But it's only a matter of time until the images are removed. So you don't need to worry about this close, since everything will work itself out in the end. My real point was that your closing comment wasn't particularly clear. You didn't really reference the areas of policy you were referring to, and your comments above seem to be a little unfamiliar with image policy. The image policy itself is somewhat subtle, and there are many users who seem to willfully ignore, or at least distort, our goal of producing an encyclopedia that is as free as possible. So a clear understanding of the policy is necessary when closing IFD discussions. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:50, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I stand behind your decision, which clearly is supported by policy and consensus.--Filll 02:04, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alasdair, welcome to the often interesting world of WP adminship ;-) ... OK, maybe mixed emotions (;-/) ______ First please let me say I obviously agree with User:Fill and User:OrangeMarlin on the issue of keeping this image. Second I should say that User:CBM and myself have already argued repreatedly and extensively and that there are no points on which we agree here at the moment). Third, I should say I partially agree with User:B, in that the closure is based upon a reasoning that differs with the basis on which the nominator brought it, focusing primarily on NFCC #8. The issue, as identified by the nominator, was that NFCC #8 is inherently a subjective measure that amounts to an editorial judgment call, and thus is left to WP:Consensus. While the nominator allowed some wiggle room for any possible evidence that the image was in clear violation of the more precise NFCC, these more precise criteria that would allow the use of a word like "obvious" had already been decided that the image met those criteria. Thus it came down to #8, whether it "significantly increases readers' understanding...". At the very least there was no consensus to delete, as had happened already in the previous IfD of this image, which, far from being a consensus to delete, was overwhelmingly a preference to keep.

I should also mention that the notion that particular administrators mentioned by administrator User:B include at least two admins who have over a 100-1 ratio of delete-to-keep. The other two are not frequently involved in IfD closures. I apologize, B, but that's in fact the way it is. .... Kenosis 06:28, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi – congrats on your bright shiny new mop! Hope you enjoy it and don't get splattered too much with the wastewater, as some of us have lately.

Anyway, I'm here to remind you to place the {{afd top}} above the article's title when closing AFDs. If you place the tag below the title, the bot that updates Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old counts it as still open, and much Wiki-drama will ensue. (Well, maybe not the drama, but the bot will still be unhappy.)

Don't feel bad, 'cause I did the same thing until Sam Blanning set me straight. WP:AFD, WP:IFD, and WP:CFD are closed with the tag on top. WP:TFD, WP:UCFD, and WP:RFD, though, are closed with the tag under the article name, so it's clear that we're supposed to be tortured as much as possible for gaining the tools. (And people think the template messages needed some standardization. Oy.)

I've fixed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Webalbum, but if you've done other AFDs you might check to see if the tag is on top. Again, congrats, and welcome to the ranks! - KrakatoaKatie 21:45, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]