Re this reversion - how do you consider references to the Skarloey Railway not to be fiction? Even if you disagree with the edit, is that any reason to revert the copy-edits as well? — Tivedshambo ( t/ c) 13:11, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
I saw your impassioned argument at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Radio Jackie North (2nd nomination)
You can actually contact everyone in the old AFD as long as you contact EVERYONE, including those who voted delete (unless they have already !voted in the AfD). The message must be neutral. A good example is:
You can also contact any editors you wish who edited the article before : http://toolserver.org/~daniel/WikiSense/Contributors.php?wikilang=en&wikifam=.wikipedia.org&grouped=on&page=Radio+Jackie+North ...with a similar neutral message. I would suggest they have at least 3 major contributions, although there is no specific guideline I am aware of. But in this article's case, there are only 3 editors.
I thought you would be interested in an organization that I am involved with. We need more editors like you to rescue articles by adding sources.
|
Are you familar with userfication? If this article is deleted, you can get it userfied.
The article you created was just deleted? | ||
All is not lost. Here is what you can do right now: | ||
Many administrators will be happy to give you a copy of your deleted article, either by putting it on a special user page for you (a process called userfication) or by e-mailing you a copy.
Once you have the article, you can try to resolve the issues why it was deleted. If you've repaired the article, or you believe the reasons for deleting the article were in error, you can dispute the deletion at Deletion Review. Generally, you must show how the previous deletion(s) were in error, but this is the place to resolve disputes about whether a deletion was wrong. |
Ikip ( talk) 07:08, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi Andy, since you have made a comment on a recent issue that is unrelated to templates, but does involve referencing, let me repeat the information provided to another editor. As to one of your concerns, see: talk. One of the issues that still remains with the type of information that the Wikiwacky masters of referencing have made is that there is no real understanding of bibliographical standards. The templates are one example of this. When Wikipedia started, there was a genuine effort to elicit responses from the great multitude, but with that came a flood of unverified and unsourced material. In order to establish some type of scholarly approach, various means were put in place to assist the contributor who was not "classically" trained in the vagaries and intricacies of bibliographical referencing, summed up rather tersely and inaccurately as "references". As things moved along, the templates were instituted, and as a cataloging librarian, I recognize the need and usefulness of templates as in over ten years in the position as a librarian, I and my staff were using templates in order to input cataloging information from sources such as the Library of Congress or from publishers' sites. The vast difference between the catalog templates that were provided by various software programs such as Columbia, was that the MARC (Machine-Readable Bibliographic Cataloging) record that was established was properly formatted. The templates in use in Wikipedia are not properly formatted and no end of asking has produced any budging from the folks who created them. Editors have taken it upon themselves to install "tweaks" into the templates to handle different functions, but even then, another editor often will reverse the change. A number of editors such as myself, have simply abandoned the cumbersome, "buggy" and often incompatible templates to revert to an earlier, "Stone Age" system of "scratch cataloging" that requires the editor to hand write the citation or bibliographic record, entry by entry. I have reverted to training that is now thirty years+ back in the dim past when I received my university training as a librarian. In order to use a hand written form of referencing sources introduces a new dilemma in that a basic understanding of cataloging conventions must be in hand. I reiterate, I have used templates extensively in my other life as a librarian, and had great success in applying them to cataloging software. The Wiki templates we are forced to use, do not allow variances, are "set" to one particular style, the American Psychological Association (APA) guide which is the preferred style for science-based research papers and works. The Modern Language Association (MLA), its offshoot, the Chicago Style Guide and other referencing formats that are more typically used in the social sciences, history and literature are not available as a Wikipedia template. I had asked for alternative templates to be available or at least "fixes" to be made and found there was a resistance to what was basically considered an optional system of referencing. Citation and reference templates are neither mandated nor even recommended, they are there as a tool, especially useful for those editors who prefer that form of inputing source information for references. FWiW, I believe we have had this conversation before. Since you do prefer the template style of referencing, all power to you, but others including myself, use a more arcane but effective hand-written system. Bzuk ( talk) 20:01, 17 September 2009 (UTC).
As you know, I processed your request on cleaning up your sandbox. In the future, please use U1 instead of G6. Thanks. -- Alexf (talk) 14:21, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Hello. You appear to be involved in an edit war on Triumph Spitfire. While the three-revert rule is hard and fast, please be aware that you can be blocked for edit warring without making 3 reverts to an article in 24 hours. You are not entitled to 3 reverts and are expected to cooperatively engage other editors on talk pages rather than reverting their edits. Note that posting your thoughts on the talk page alone is not a license to continue reverting. You must reach consensus. Continued edit warring may cause you to be blocked. Toddst1 ( talk) 20:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC) Toddst1 ( talk) 21:41, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi Andy - thanks for your contribution to the discussion at WP:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Use_of_owners.27_club_websites_to_verify_automotive_data. I understand your point about WP:RS versus WP:EL. I would be happy if you edited the title of the discussion to extend the scope, and ask two separate, but linked questions. My ultimate aim is to clarify what is going on here (without making strong statements about individual users) and make the ground rules clear. If you could clearly support your argument with reference to WP:ELNO point 11, I believe that would take us a step forward. If you can explain how someone could easily identify a club website that would qualify as a WP:RS that would help too. Wikiwayman ( talk) 13:14, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
In addition, I am concerned by this edit where you reverted an unquestionably good faith edit by another user. I'm sure you're aware that you should revert vandalism on sight, but revert a good faith edit only as a last resort. Toddst1 ( talk) 21:49, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
There's no basis to disagree on the intent of "the assumed moral intention of an anonymous editor". It's called AGF. We don't revert unknown faith edits either. Period. We revert a good faith edit only as a last resort. I haven't seen any demonstration of Andy understanding this in this discussion. Heck, the edit war alone is reason to lose rollback. Toddst1 ( talk) 02:06, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Andy: (disclosure, someone asked me to opine here) is it reasonable to ask that you undertake to use rollback only in non controversial situations? Rollback is a privilege not granted to all, and if there are community concerns they probably should be addressed. I see not everyone agrees that your rollback in this instance was problematic, but still perhaps such an undertaking might be useful. ++ Lar: t/ c 16:09, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
I have nominated Category:Folksonomy ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Cybercobra (talk) 00:51, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I see you've recently reverted some undiscussed moves involving "car" to "automobile". Thanks. I wonder if you'd consider another one – the change from "List of cars" to List of automakers. Outwith (!) US English, this doesn't appear to be a word. It's certainly not in my British English dictionary. I suggest "List of automobile manufacturers" would be a fair compromise (allowing for the mover's desire to avoid the word "car") but this is already a redirect (to something else, as it happens, but it's misdirected anyway). I don't seem to be able to move over redirects, but I note that you were able to earlier so I hope you don't mind my asking whether you agree and if so whether you'd do the honours. – Kieran T ( talk) 17:06, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Discussion here Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Automobiles#Renaming_articles_with_.22car.22_in_their_title_to_.22automobile.22 ---- Typ932 T· C 20:13, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
I have nominated Category:John Brogden and sons ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for renaming to Category:John Brogden and Sons ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. -- Alan Liefting ( talk) - 23:08, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Re this reversion - how do you consider references to the Skarloey Railway not to be fiction? Even if you disagree with the edit, is that any reason to revert the copy-edits as well? — Tivedshambo ( t/ c) 13:11, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
I saw your impassioned argument at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Radio Jackie North (2nd nomination)
You can actually contact everyone in the old AFD as long as you contact EVERYONE, including those who voted delete (unless they have already !voted in the AfD). The message must be neutral. A good example is:
You can also contact any editors you wish who edited the article before : http://toolserver.org/~daniel/WikiSense/Contributors.php?wikilang=en&wikifam=.wikipedia.org&grouped=on&page=Radio+Jackie+North ...with a similar neutral message. I would suggest they have at least 3 major contributions, although there is no specific guideline I am aware of. But in this article's case, there are only 3 editors.
I thought you would be interested in an organization that I am involved with. We need more editors like you to rescue articles by adding sources.
|
Are you familar with userfication? If this article is deleted, you can get it userfied.
The article you created was just deleted? | ||
All is not lost. Here is what you can do right now: | ||
Many administrators will be happy to give you a copy of your deleted article, either by putting it on a special user page for you (a process called userfication) or by e-mailing you a copy.
Once you have the article, you can try to resolve the issues why it was deleted. If you've repaired the article, or you believe the reasons for deleting the article were in error, you can dispute the deletion at Deletion Review. Generally, you must show how the previous deletion(s) were in error, but this is the place to resolve disputes about whether a deletion was wrong. |
Ikip ( talk) 07:08, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi Andy, since you have made a comment on a recent issue that is unrelated to templates, but does involve referencing, let me repeat the information provided to another editor. As to one of your concerns, see: talk. One of the issues that still remains with the type of information that the Wikiwacky masters of referencing have made is that there is no real understanding of bibliographical standards. The templates are one example of this. When Wikipedia started, there was a genuine effort to elicit responses from the great multitude, but with that came a flood of unverified and unsourced material. In order to establish some type of scholarly approach, various means were put in place to assist the contributor who was not "classically" trained in the vagaries and intricacies of bibliographical referencing, summed up rather tersely and inaccurately as "references". As things moved along, the templates were instituted, and as a cataloging librarian, I recognize the need and usefulness of templates as in over ten years in the position as a librarian, I and my staff were using templates in order to input cataloging information from sources such as the Library of Congress or from publishers' sites. The vast difference between the catalog templates that were provided by various software programs such as Columbia, was that the MARC (Machine-Readable Bibliographic Cataloging) record that was established was properly formatted. The templates in use in Wikipedia are not properly formatted and no end of asking has produced any budging from the folks who created them. Editors have taken it upon themselves to install "tweaks" into the templates to handle different functions, but even then, another editor often will reverse the change. A number of editors such as myself, have simply abandoned the cumbersome, "buggy" and often incompatible templates to revert to an earlier, "Stone Age" system of "scratch cataloging" that requires the editor to hand write the citation or bibliographic record, entry by entry. I have reverted to training that is now thirty years+ back in the dim past when I received my university training as a librarian. In order to use a hand written form of referencing sources introduces a new dilemma in that a basic understanding of cataloging conventions must be in hand. I reiterate, I have used templates extensively in my other life as a librarian, and had great success in applying them to cataloging software. The Wiki templates we are forced to use, do not allow variances, are "set" to one particular style, the American Psychological Association (APA) guide which is the preferred style for science-based research papers and works. The Modern Language Association (MLA), its offshoot, the Chicago Style Guide and other referencing formats that are more typically used in the social sciences, history and literature are not available as a Wikipedia template. I had asked for alternative templates to be available or at least "fixes" to be made and found there was a resistance to what was basically considered an optional system of referencing. Citation and reference templates are neither mandated nor even recommended, they are there as a tool, especially useful for those editors who prefer that form of inputing source information for references. FWiW, I believe we have had this conversation before. Since you do prefer the template style of referencing, all power to you, but others including myself, use a more arcane but effective hand-written system. Bzuk ( talk) 20:01, 17 September 2009 (UTC).
As you know, I processed your request on cleaning up your sandbox. In the future, please use U1 instead of G6. Thanks. -- Alexf (talk) 14:21, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Hello. You appear to be involved in an edit war on Triumph Spitfire. While the three-revert rule is hard and fast, please be aware that you can be blocked for edit warring without making 3 reverts to an article in 24 hours. You are not entitled to 3 reverts and are expected to cooperatively engage other editors on talk pages rather than reverting their edits. Note that posting your thoughts on the talk page alone is not a license to continue reverting. You must reach consensus. Continued edit warring may cause you to be blocked. Toddst1 ( talk) 20:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC) Toddst1 ( talk) 21:41, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi Andy - thanks for your contribution to the discussion at WP:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Use_of_owners.27_club_websites_to_verify_automotive_data. I understand your point about WP:RS versus WP:EL. I would be happy if you edited the title of the discussion to extend the scope, and ask two separate, but linked questions. My ultimate aim is to clarify what is going on here (without making strong statements about individual users) and make the ground rules clear. If you could clearly support your argument with reference to WP:ELNO point 11, I believe that would take us a step forward. If you can explain how someone could easily identify a club website that would qualify as a WP:RS that would help too. Wikiwayman ( talk) 13:14, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
In addition, I am concerned by this edit where you reverted an unquestionably good faith edit by another user. I'm sure you're aware that you should revert vandalism on sight, but revert a good faith edit only as a last resort. Toddst1 ( talk) 21:49, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
There's no basis to disagree on the intent of "the assumed moral intention of an anonymous editor". It's called AGF. We don't revert unknown faith edits either. Period. We revert a good faith edit only as a last resort. I haven't seen any demonstration of Andy understanding this in this discussion. Heck, the edit war alone is reason to lose rollback. Toddst1 ( talk) 02:06, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Andy: (disclosure, someone asked me to opine here) is it reasonable to ask that you undertake to use rollback only in non controversial situations? Rollback is a privilege not granted to all, and if there are community concerns they probably should be addressed. I see not everyone agrees that your rollback in this instance was problematic, but still perhaps such an undertaking might be useful. ++ Lar: t/ c 16:09, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
I have nominated Category:Folksonomy ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Cybercobra (talk) 00:51, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I see you've recently reverted some undiscussed moves involving "car" to "automobile". Thanks. I wonder if you'd consider another one – the change from "List of cars" to List of automakers. Outwith (!) US English, this doesn't appear to be a word. It's certainly not in my British English dictionary. I suggest "List of automobile manufacturers" would be a fair compromise (allowing for the mover's desire to avoid the word "car") but this is already a redirect (to something else, as it happens, but it's misdirected anyway). I don't seem to be able to move over redirects, but I note that you were able to earlier so I hope you don't mind my asking whether you agree and if so whether you'd do the honours. – Kieran T ( talk) 17:06, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Discussion here Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Automobiles#Renaming_articles_with_.22car.22_in_their_title_to_.22automobile.22 ---- Typ932 T· C 20:13, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
I have nominated Category:John Brogden and sons ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for renaming to Category:John Brogden and Sons ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. -- Alan Liefting ( talk) - 23:08, 28 September 2009 (UTC)