This is an archive of past discussions with User:Lear's Fool. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Hello Lear's Fool, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I deleted Raell Padamsee, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, under a different criterion from the one you provided. The speedy deletion criteria are extremely narrow and specific, and the process is more effective if the correct criterion is used. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. The WordsmithCommunicate05:11, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi Xootx, and welcome to Wikipedia! The tags I placed on SharpDX are called cleanup tags, and they serve to invite readers of the article to be bold and fix the issues indicated by the tags, and to add these articles to cleanup categories. In this case, the concerns are that SharpDX may not meet Wikipedia's notability requirements, and that the article does not cite any reliable sources, as required by our verifiability policy. To indicate notability, the subject of an article should generally have received significant coverage in reliable sourcesindependent of the subject, and this coverage should be cited in the article. Articles that do not meet this guideline can face deletion, so if you know of any such coverage, it would be good to add references to it.
Regarding SlimDX, the reality of Wikipedia is that, if only because of its size, there will not always be consistency in how articles have been dealt with. Furthermore, not all articles comply with our policies and guidelines, and so comparisons to other articles of the form do not necessarily dismiss policy-based concerns. Because of this, there is a generally accepted principle that articles should be dealt with on their own merits, rather than by comparisons to similar articles. For a better discussion of this, you may be interested in the essay Wikipedia:Other stuff exists.
Please do not take the addition of these tags as an indictment on your article, or as I sign that your contributions are not welcome: they most certainly are. They simply serve as indicators of what needs to be done for these articles to comply with core policies regarding content. If you are able to make these changes, please do, and please feel free to let me know if you have any more questions! -- Lear'sFool14:30, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Can you outline the personal analysis contained within my edit to the article?
Currently the article assesses things as 'left' e.g 'left-wing factions', which is similarly 'personal analysis' as is the comment of 'it is also thought to be the most powerful' which is problematic on sooooo many levels. Comparatively, my reference to 'Unity' as a right wing faction is actually backed up by the wiki page it accompanies as well as Unity's own website (which disproves the current 'left-wing factions' 'personal analysis').
Hi Zoom, welcome to Wikipedia! Regarding your characterisation of student Unity, I'm afraid referring to them as a "hard-right" faction without citing reliable sources constitutes personal analysis in a way that describing the Socialist and Labor-Left factions as "left-wing" does not. While few would contest that the Socialist factions and (to a lesser extent) NLS could fairly be described as left-wing, many would call Unity "centre-right" as opposed to "hard right", and the page on student Unity provides a better description anyway. More broadly, however, you are right that the articles on Australian student politics are rife with problematic personal analysis, but I'm afraid that can't be used to justify the inclusion of more. When I get the time, I might take to the articles with a hacksaw and see how much is left, and you should absolutely feel free to be bold and reference or remove such original research where you see it.
Finally, the part of your edits where you write that NLS is now controlled by the soft right of the ALP, and mention the pursuit of further careers, falls squarely in the category of original research. It may well be true, but analysis like that must be neutral, well-referenced and given appropriate weight. Please feel free to let me know (here) if you have any more questions! -- Lear'sFool14:48, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Well, personally, I would contest that NLS could be fairly characterised as left-wing given the sub-factional split between Victoria (formerly ALS) and everywhere else (formerly NOLS). Victorian ALP (and the statements by those office bearers is usually synonomous with the Unity platform) is a more right wing creature and it currently dominates NLS. A number of (independent, so I don't know whether you'd call it biased or not given that it's dominated by progressives) media records the same views.
And the careerist bit isn't solely original research, it's something which has been mentioned in Crikey, GLW, Tharunka etc. though I'm unsure as to how to cite them. Can you expand upon neutral, as well? I was attempting accuracy and noting right or left wing tendencies is not something which creates positive or negative value judgements upon either group so I'm unsure which bit was not neutral.
The key here is the use of reliable sources to back up claims and analysis. The easiest way to cite a source is to activate RefTools, which you can do by clicking on "My Preferences" at the top of the page, going to the "Gadgets" tab, and ticking the box next to "RefTools". Then, whenever you edit a page, there'll be a "Cite" link that can be used to easily generate the wikitext required to add citations. If you can find references for these claims, you should add them using this tool (let me know if you need more help!), but I must stress that sources such as the ones you mentioned would not be considered reliable by Wikipedia's standards. Crikey is essentially a series of blogs, Green Left Weekly is never going to be neutral, and the student publications (Tharunka, Waroni, On Dit etc.) are too frequently coloured by the political persuasions (and often allegiances) of whoever happens to be editing that year.
Regarding neutrality, my difficulties primarily concerned the following paragraph:
The NLS is currently dominated by the soft right of the ALP, having moved away from its progressive and grassroots ideology. NLS now pursues office bearer positions within the National Executive in order to establish ties with and future careers within the senior Labor Party and the Union movement.
This phrase (whether you intended it or not) is not neutral. Claims about neglecting their traditionally progressive ideology and the pursuit of positions primarily for careerist and selfish interests (both of which are implied here) are negative. They could possibly be admissible if backed up by a reliable source, but in this form they form (as I said in my edit summary) un-referenced, non-neutral commentary. -- Lear'sFool12:03, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Copyright violations
Thanks for picking up that copyvio. If you revert a copyvio and it gets reverted back into an article, usually the best thing to do is list the problem at WP:CP and blank the problem text with Subst:copyvio. That template prohibits the restoring party from restoring it until it's resolved by an admin, which helps avoid revert-wars and gives you more cover.--Mkativerata (talk) 03:53, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I've changed the {{Unreferenced BLP}} tag to an {{Unreferenced}}, because I don't see how an article regarding some one who died in 1976 can be a BLP :) . A BLP is a 'Biography of a Living Person', and for all non-living people, an ordinary unreferenced tag will do. Thanks, Acather96 (talk) 10:29, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes - sorry about that. In fact, the same IP who removed my CSD tag also removed yours. I agree the IP is most likely the creating editor, but it's not absolutely certain. I'd be inclined to let the AfD run its course. I42 (talk) 12:07, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
I was looking over some of your contributions in preparation for !voting on your RfA, and I found this edit. Although it doesn't change anything, the stub template actually goes two lines below the category links, as per WP:FOOTERS. Anyway, good luck! Guoguo12--Talk--00:28, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Ugh, sorry. I'll remember that from now on, but there'll be a number of my recent edits that'll have the same problem. Thanks for the heads up! -- Lear'sFool00:30, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
RfA
I have just added my very sincere support. I do hope you succeed, and it is early days yet, so anything could happen. However, if you don't succeed, take careful note of the comments, try to address them in your editing, and come back for another try in 6 months to a year. In my opinion RfAs very often include "opposes" given for really silly reasons, but unfortunately no matter how silly they are it is necessary to take them into account if you do try again. I am confident that you have the necessary qualities to make a good admin sooner or later, preferably now. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:26, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your kind words and support, James, I appreciate it. I'm a resilient enough person not to take the opposes personally, and if this request is unsuccessful, I'm perfectly happy to continue editing as I did before. That said, you are right that I should take the criticisms on board, and I intend to do so whether I'm successful here or not. -- Lear'sFool12:13, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
As Did I, I will change it to full support as you have answered lustre'sfetchcomms question. I do not think, what-so-ever that content creation is needed to become an admin (although there really is no criteria, but the invisible criteria has quadrupled over the years). I do not agree with lustrefetchcomms that we should not ask for a reason when someone oppose with no reason at all. Good Luck. Tofutwitch11(TALK)14:54, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
When I first found your RfA your support rate was listed as 58%, which was not very promising, though good enough for there to be reasonable hope. That explains the tone of my comment above. I have just checked back and your support now stands at 73%. That is by no means enough to guarantee success, but it is enough to encourage me to have faith that you will succeed. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:11, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
After long deliberation I have posted my support. Other reasons which I cared not to share on the RfA were that you have some big guns of RfA tradition supporting and nominating you, and JamesBWatson's impressive statement. It's a shame that your RfA too, has been subject to a lot of silly 'optional' questions - some I think, from people just trying to look clever. I hope you succeed. Kudpung (talk) 06:13, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
My comment on the self-imposed ban - I am just a bit puzzled as to why you should impose a block on yourself. I have never heard of anyone doing that. I assume you didn't feel you could trust yourself to keep off wikipedia voluntarily? Deb (talk) 15:04, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
To be honest, I was just giving it a try. I've found it a helpful study method to simply put things out of sight and out of mind when needed, and I thought about giving a self-requested block a try. Please don't take offence to this (I don't intend any), but I'm actually a little baffled that it's become an issue. I requested a block that was entirely in accordance with policy to see whether it would help my study: I'm not sure how it speaks poorly of me as a person, editor or potential administrator. As an aside, I don't know of many others who have done this (I haven't looked), but I did stumble across a similar block in NuclearWarfare's block log. -- Lear'sFool23:58, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm happy with your answers in general. If you don't make it this time, I'll support you next time (that's provisional, of course). Deb (talk) 12:51, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi Lear, I have switched from neutral at your RFA to "strong oppose", so I just wanted I pop by and stress again that this is very much a "not now" oppose. I am not saying "no Lear's Fool", but rather "not this inexperienced Lear's Fool". I'm very impressed with your calmness and civility, which are great qualities in an admin, so if you decide to engage more with content and content-policy to allay my concerns, I hope you'll apply again.
Thank you BHG. I'm afraid I've disagreed with your analysis in the oppose, but I appreciate the effort you have gone to to provide constructive criticism, and the courteous way in which you have done so. -- Lear'sFoolsock05:48, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Why, thank you Utahraptor. I've used the phrase "I appreciate" so often in the last week I'm worried it's starting to sound hollow, but I do appreciate your kind words. -- Lear'sFool13:21, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing that out, I actually meant to link to the page on Lewis Hamilton, rather than Louis Hamilton. Unfortunately the mistake somewhat ruins the joke. Regarding the disambiguation page, I didn't explicitly state that I would update it in my answer to question 6, but (assuming it had not been done already) I would have done so as part of re-writing and restoring the article. -- Lear'sFool02:39, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Well, there's less than three and a half hours to go. I would have liked to have been here to be one of the the first to (preferably) congratulate you or else (if unfortunately necessary) to commiserate, but I won't be available at the time it's all due to end, so I'm here now instead. It's too close to call at the moment, but I still hope you succeed. If you do, then Congratulations, great to have you on board. If you don't, then remember that you got almost three times as many supports as opposes: in other words a substantial majority of those who expressed an opinion supported, and also remember that even among the opposes quite a number were saying "not now" rather than "no". Best wishes, whether as a new admin or still as a non-admin who has just gained one more piece of potentially useful experience. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:46, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Just a few hours left now. My best wishes to you Lear's. I think you've been actually through the hell week; and I am really proud of how you've handled it all so very well. I do look forward to seeing you as a fellow administrator and am quite confident that the bureaucrat is going to consider your RfA post-extension extremely positively. Cheers. Wifione ....... Leave a message18:06, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Allow me to extend my sympathy; your roller-coaster ride is not over yet- it's moved into the rare bureaucrat chat phase here (as noted here, with some attendant discussion). –xenotalk02:28, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
The UtahraptorTalk/Contribs has bought you a pint! Sharing a pint is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the WikiLove by buying someone else a pint, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Cheers!
Spread the good cheer and camaraderie by adding {{subst:WikiPint}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Well, there's a number of "congrats" sections been started here, but I thought the "Woohoo!!" one seemed most appropriate - congrats from me too :-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:43, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
They lied when they said it wasn't a trophy...here it is!
'Grats! I watched this Rfa quite closely after I chimed in on your behalf... and I was glad to see more supporters stepped up, and that the 'Crats saw it right. Best wishes for your adminship, today and everyday! Jusdafax01:13, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Congratulations from me too, I thought you handled yourself very well in that RFA. If you use monobook there are some scripts in my monobook.js that you might well find useful, and if you want advice on any adminny things feel free to ask. ϢereSpielChequers01:02, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
You probably had more "pre-mop" buttons then I do. The guy who write wrote the code did say that there was a way to make them even tighter but I'm not sure how. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:50, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Congratulations. Be careful with your new mop and everything will work out fine. ;-) As for Ron's comment, I stole some code from Amalthea's CSS to make them tighter. Maybe that works better? Also, as per WSC's suggestion, you should browse the monobook.js files some admins use to find some useful scripts you might want to use (mine has annotations ;-)) And of course, if I can be of any assistance, feel free to ask me at any time :-) Regards SoWhy08:40, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Congratulations from me too. As you know, I opposed your RFA, but now that you've got the mop I know you'll do your best to use it well. See you at the next meeting of the Cabal, on 31st February! --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 11:22, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Thank you to everyone for your congratulations and well-wishes. I'll probably be editing only a little over the next few days; what is hell week for most was nearly hell fortnight for me, and I'd be lying if I said it hadn't taken its toll :). Again, I am deeply grateful for your support. -- Lear'sFool02:24, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
As the guy who passed immediately before thee, congratulations; come to the cabal channel for your officially issued dark wizard's robe, "welcome to hell" doormat and hipflask. The latter will prove useful :P. Ironholds (talk) 02:58, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Acerbic and vitriolic congrats
:):) Yippeyo :) Great to see you all passed the RfA :) Congrats Lear's Fool. If you ever need assistance, you know where to drop by (and where not to; ha ha). Best wishes for your admin-tenure. Wifione ....... Leave a message04:21, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Congrats and best of luck. Consider this a coupon for one free copyediting job on any history or biography article you're working on. - Dank (push to talk) 04:29, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Dank, that's an offer I'll definitely take up (although I'm not sure what I've done to deserve it)! I have nominated John O'Reily for Good Article status (it would be my first GA), but I'm starting to think it might not be up to scratch. Any help or pointers you could give me with it would be much appreciated. -- Lear'sFool04:33, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
I've been looking for a GA review to do, so I've just started yours (comments on the relevant page). Congratulations on passing your marathon RfA. --Mkativerata (talk) 05:55, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
The administrators' mop and bucket, use this liberally. Now you have these, you shouldn't have to suffer the t-shirt, as it won't be all you've got ;-)
Nobody who has not been through an RfA can really understand how stressful it can be, and in your case the stress content was well beyond the normal, so you will take a little time to recover. However, you will recover, and in a while it will all be just an interesting memory. Do remember that far more people supported than opposed. Some of the opposes were, in my opinion, nonsense, and as for the few legitimate concerns, from what I have seen of your editing I am very confident that you will learn constructively from them. I see that EVula has already given you a couple of very useful links (above, in the section headed "Congratulations on your RfA"), otherwise I would have given them to you. The Administrators' how-to guide is useful too. Much more of a personal view, which I like, but you may or may not agree with, is expressed at Wikipedia:What you won't learn in new admin school. As with everything else on Wikipedia, there is far too much reading matter to expect you to read and absorb everything before you do anything, but do have a look. It is well worth while, I think, working through most or even all of the New admin school. Also, in a few months time when you are so used to doing admin work that most of the time you don't have to think about it, something will come up that you haven't done before, and you won't know how to handle it: do remember that these links will still be there to check on. Also, of course, you can also ask another admin for help. Please do feel free to contact me for any sort of help, advice, etc. I'm not the first to make that offer, but I'm here if I can be of any use to you. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:22, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks James. You'll be pleased to know that I've already been through the New Admin School and transcluded the dashboard onto my userpage. I'll be sure to give those other pages a read, too. -- Lear'sFool14:19, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
But shame on you to forget the kiwis - congrats on the mop - but hey NZ deletion sorting too? - havent you seen how seriously they take the game? - cheers and happy new year as well SatuSuro01:07, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Nah its mere chickenfeed compared to the really fierce afd's - I cannot mention the australian champ here - but the champ would make mincemeat of both sides of the argument - unfortunately - :( SatuSuro00:30, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
HeyMid (contribs) has bought you a whisky! Sharing a whisky is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the WikiLove by buying someone else a whisky, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Enjoy!
Spread the good cheer and camaraderie by adding {{subst:User:HJ Mitchell/WikiScotch}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Message received at 18:58, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Perseus, Sonof Zeus has bought you a whisky! Sharing a whisky is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the WikiLove by buying someone else a whisky, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Enjoy!
Spread the good cheer and camaraderie by adding {{subst:User:HJ Mitchell/WikiScotch}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Message received at 19:06, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, the category in question (Category:Sexual and gender prejudices) is intended for actual prejudices like Homophobia, Sexism etc. and not for people alleged to perpetuate them. More broadly, I'm not sure it's a good idea for biographies to be added to a "sexist" category (for example) because of an isolated a particular incident, but that's not why I reverted. I suppose I didn't make that clear in my edit summary. My bad. -- Lear'sFool12:13, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi and congratulations on your recent adminship. I'm glad to see you decided to add yourself to CAT:AOTR, but it appears that you may be inadvertantly listed twice. That may be because you're using a subpage (User:Lear's_Fool/Headers). Let me know if your dup was intentional. I let folk know when I spot it because some folk use the number of category entries to count the number of admins actually so committed. Cheers. ++Lar: t/c22:39, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi,
I was surprised to notice you deleted the page Jarrod Glover without first giving me any chance to add sources. If you could reopen the page as you are an administrator, I could add the sources. I don't think it's very fair of you to come to a new page created by a new user and delete it without first consulting the creator, as is Wikipedia policy. Enidblyton11 (talk) 01:40, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi Enidblyton11! Usually, you would be correct, most of our deletion processes do, in fact, require notification of the creator. However, our policies regarding living persons allow less room to move. The article you created was deleted under the G10 criterion of our speedy deletion process, which allows for the fast removal of biographies of living persons (BLPs) that are substantially negative and either unsourced or poorly sourced. Unfortunately, your article was mostly negative, and poorly sourced, if at all. You are welcome to recreate this article with reliable sources supporting any contentious claims, but I should let you know that a cursory Google News search would seem to indicate that Mr Glover does not meet our notability guidelines, and so the article would likely be deleted through other processes. Please feel free to let me know if you have any more questions. -- Lear'sFool01:58, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Hello,
Would it be possible for you to recreate the page for me to use as a starter for a better sourced more accuarte page?
I'm afraid I cannot restore the article, since it violates our BLP policy. For what it's worth, you're probably better served by starting from the ground up anyway, including only the information about him you can find in reliable sources. -- Lear'sFoolsock08:09, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
