Hi, and let me welcome you to Wikipedia!

I will start off by saying that arbitration is not something I get involved in much. This is in fact the first case ever where I have made a statement and presented evidence. I think that comments regarding evidence go on the talkpage for evidence, while any "diffs" (displaying clearly what the edit was) go on the main evidence page.

Regarding the evidence I presented, it is in part based on a paragraph in the Guide to Deletion. I myself know quite little about webcomics, but I do know a bit about Wikipedia's deletion process, having closed several deletion debates. In general, one or two votes from anonymous users or from accounts with few edits is within what is normal. However, when an AFD discussion gets large numbers of such votes, especially when they are all voting the same (usually "keep"), there is an immediate suspicion of sockpuppetry or that something is amiss, and in such cases, those votes are routinely disregarded when determining whether or not there is a consensus.

There have been other cases before as well where a posting on a webforum has drawn a number of people to "stack" a vote, Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Flying Spaghetti Monster being one of the worst cases.

In one case, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Able and Baker, the situation got so out of hand that when I closed the discussion, I overlooked some votes from more established users and deleted the article, although I reversed that decision (to the chagrin of some) when I discovered my error.

Anyway, a little bit of experience and some time editing articles, especially in the main article namespace (which is, and should remain, the backbone of Wikipedia), will usually satisfy anyone who is worried if an editor is sincere or not.

Hope you decide to stay! Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:31, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You do realize that this link you've added to WP:WEB is one that I provided? And that what it actually shows is that mid-range alexas (like the 100K that is being pushed) are not indicative of wide readership? In effect, it's the opposite of what I'm fairly sure your intentions are.
brenneman^(t)(c) 03:09, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I didn't realise you'd provided it, but what I was trying to do was add some information there to the effect that Alexa isn't reliable, and I thought that was a fairly NPOV link to do so. My interpretation of that link is that it's saying Alexa is usreliable, and shouldn't be used as evidence of non-notability. I just don't think Alexa's a particularly good tool, so I thought it would be useful to have something on the project page to that effect. Wouldn't you agree? J•A•K 14:10, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • We agree that Alexa's pretty weak! I'm not sure how much you know about statistics and sampling, so forgive me if the explanation I'm about to give is insulting.
    • Imagine we have 100 golf balls in a sack - 50 red, 25 blue, 20 yellow, and one each of black, grey, slate, smoke, and ash. We know what colours we have, but we don't know how many of each colour are in the bag.
    • Imagine that we only pick 10 out at random and extrapolate. We might get, for example, 6 red, 2 blue, 2 blue, and 1 grey. If we aren't careful, this might make us think there were sixty red balls ten grey balls. So for the dense population we'd be out by only 20%, but for the sparse population we're 900% out.
    • Alexa is somewhat useful for sites with "low" numbers. The top 500 are almost certainly accurate, the top 10K probably a safe bet, but anything over that is pot luck. The statement that you made that "very high Alexa does not necessarily indicate non-notability" is in fact essentially correct, in that any alexa over 50K means almost nothing but doesn't prove the negative.
  • I hope that this was both clear and appropiate. Please keep the lines of communication open!
    brenneman^(t)(c) 00:04, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Very clear, if somewhat redundant. I'm a maths student at the moment, and so have been unable to avoid doing any statistics at all, despite my best intentions. I've can't remember all of it, but I'm well briefed with sampling problems. A refresher's always useful, though, and if we ever have need to explain sampling problems, we now have something to point people at. You know how much links are appreciated around here. :-).
    • On a related note, did you see The Webcomic List mentioned on the talk page of WP:WEB? It could be quite useful as a ranking tool: although it faces problems of small sample again, it is actually a webcomic ranking that is at least semi-fair, or seems so at first. J•A•K 01:04, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken your name in vain elsewhere, so I thought that it fitting to make the same statment here. Of the very new accounts that participated in this, you were a standout contributor. You made reasoned arguments, you provided links, and in general behaved to a high standard. I just wanted to thank you for that. Following from that, your contributions to WP:WEB have been very good, and I'm impressed with your congeniality.
So, keep up the good work, and in case no-one has told you, it's not usually like this around here. Not bunnies and flowers, mind you, but not like this.
brenneman^(t)(c) 00:04, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you very much for the kind words, hopefully we'll hammer out some sort of consensus on WP:WEB some day. Incidentally, can you suggest where to look for articles which have spelling mistakes, or vandalisms to be reverted, useful jobs to do on the main wikipedia? J•A•K 01:14, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Can I ever! Category:Wikipedia maintenance is the ichi-ban list of everything, but I find it hard to get my teeth into. Category:Wikipedia cleanup is pretty good, in particular because the technical challenge is not great, as opposed to say Wikipedia:Double redirects which can get pretty confusing pretty quickly. Cat:Cleanup is also good because it exposes you to a wide variety of articles. This is also why I like Category:Random Pages Tests. Anyway, that's probably more to do that one person should do at once. - brenneman^(t)(c) 05:06, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you, I shall have a look at some of them when I have some free time. As opposed to "taking a break from coursework to edit wikipedia time" J•A•K 13:31, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I was excited the see your name was blue, and rushed over to see what masterpiece of self expresion you'd whipped up. You tricked me!
^_^ brenneman^(t)(c) 02:50, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Bwa-ha-ha! You fell for my master plan. I was originally going to go for a redirect, before discovering they don't actually work here. I'll probably have something up there in a couple of weeks. (I'm aware I could make my name link to my talk, but I didn't feel like it). J•A•K 02:56, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was the special characters that made it not work... I've taken the liberty. - brenneman^(t)(c) 03:01, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Cheers. I've not totally got to grip with special characters yet. I should probably look into it, since 40% of my user name is special characters. J•A•K 03:28, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This appearance after a 10-year abscence was a relief to the many fans of the rod, some of whom believed Homer, jealous of the Rod's success, had done away with it. Its decade-long hiatus is still regarded with suspiscion, many still hope for an explanation of the rod's activities, as well as it's fall from fame. It is rumoured the rod will soon publish an autobiography, although derisors claim it is ghost-written.

I can't find any substantiation for this information; do you have a source? — THOR ^=/\= 05:06, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that was a joke. To be fair, there's no proof that it hasn't happened. I was about to delete it anyway, though. J•A•K 12:36, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've rewritten Wikipedia:Notability (websites), leaning heavily on Wikipedia:Notability (companies and corporations) for insiration. I've tried to make the guidelines broader so that they can be applied to any form of web content, rather than focusing on specifics. The goal shouldn't be to set bars to take account of particular examples, but rather to outline existing policy and consensus at various places. As someone who has expressed an opinion on the guidelines in the past, I hope you will read the new version and comment on the talk page. Steve block talk 12:08, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I named it archive 01 is that no archive existed with that name, and it did not seem a pressing concern at that point to try and sort out the archives. I apologise for any confusion or misunderstanding this may have caused between us, and have sorted out the archives as penance. Again, please accept my humble apologies. I hope this can now end the matter of the archiving in question. Steve block talk 13:29, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, it's fine. I knew you were acting with the best intentions, I just saw the potential for confusion and wanted to stop it before it got any further. Apologies for any offence I caused you. J•A•K 14:07, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't suppose you could care to look at the Horacio Elizondo article can you vote at the bottom to see whether we should keep Rooney's view on his decision in the article as I'm trying reach a consensus as soon as possible. Thanks. Englishrose 10:33, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed this from the Uncontroversial proposals section. That section says "If there is any doubt as to whether a page move could be opposed by anyone, do not list it in this section.". Since there are two competing articles another editor may object. Please relist in Other proposals. You should also place the appropriate template on the talk pages of both articles. BlueValour 00:04, 18 November 2006 (UTC)