Click here to create a new topic section on the page.
|
Hi Pnt, you have knowledge of the extent to which users actually hit links. I wonder whether you might be in a position to make a contribution [ [1]]. There are moves afoot to mandate repeat links within sections ... basically, everywhere an item occurs, although I suspect that extreme view will not succeed. Some editors seem to be under the impression that readers hit links a lot. Tony (talk) 14:47, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi Piano
Thought you might be interested in this discussion, to which I have added a link to your post at WP:LINKING on your webmaster perspective.
Although no one has reverted the link audits I've conducted in the main text of popular culture articles (a dozen or so), and one editor even expressed ample thanks on my talk page, recently a few zealots have started reverted the infobox links. The examples given on the template overleaf treat linking like wallpaper.
Tony
Hi. Can you provide you opinion on this matter? Thanks. Nightscream ( talk) 01:36, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
You removed reliably sourced information. The text makes it clear that it is an allegation, not that the allegations have been proven. You'll need to come up with a reason supported by actual policy in order to remove reliably sourced information. Please respond on the article's talk page. Cla68 ( talk) 23:30, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
As "The World's Most Beautiful Man" I feel it's important that this be relayed to the public. (Sourced to my mother.) Eudemis ( talk) 00:28, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
You accused me of vandalizing the Bias Tee article by correcting an obvious error where it says "Bas" instead of "Bias". You might wanna check that again. (141.20.49.4)
Ah, sry about that. Will try again. (141.20.49.4)
Ohh what you going to do. Block meh? ;)
Try discussing it on the on talk page for Zakir Naik before you make an edit. That way you can spare me time reverting your contentious edits. (Unsigned comment by 89.108.34.91 from Rome, Italy.)
I had offered Micheal a job as a development manager at a chain of Franchised restaurants, due to your attitude I have decided to withdraw the offer and Michael is now unemployed, congratulations on your good work. 212.238.41.6 ( talk) 12:56, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Whoa, whoa, slow down for a second. A ton of these articles you've been tagging definitely meet criteria. Second Nature (film) won three awards, one from the Mammoth Film Festival. Christian Jouanin discovered a new species of petrel, named after him, and described many others. And The Frail Tide is an album by a band with notability already established. Hold the tagging for a second. ALI nom nom 19:51, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Since I can't post on his page, I will respond here. Exactly how was directing you to get consensus (hey, didn't happen, not my fault) on your removing of sections on the WBAL-TV page considered "manag[ing] to rig the system to continue their behavior"? Everything we do from AfDs to putting a new system in place is done on the basis of consensus. That isn't my rule, that is the main rules the founders of Wikipedia put together when they started the site.
What I am hearing from several people is that my telling them to get consensus is being a "dictator" and not being "responsive"....what exactly would you like to be able to do? Be dictators yourself? You want to control me, but then you yourself would be the dictator. So, essentially, you are wanting to turn the tables. Don't work that way. We ALL (me, you, Drmies, everyone) gets consensus. I have it on my side with WP:TVS's rules (which have been backed up by consensus). If you wish to change those, you need to take it to TVS or RfC. Otherwise, things remain as they are. You are wanting to get your way and prevent me from keeping long established sections. That is yourself being a dictator and controlling. Can't have your cake and eat it too, my friend. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 17:45, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Piano, if you wish to give it another try at TVS, I'd be interested, if only to do away with some of the specious arguments recited above: 1. there is broad consensus for the inclusion of unverified and often trivial information; 2. if one deletes non-notable people one should delete notable ones as well; 3. if one cleans up one article one must do them all. I think TVS could do with an explicit rule along the line of what you proposed there earlier. Drmies ( talk) 18:43, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi Piano non troppo - I have removed your FAR nomination of Halkett boat because it is premature. This article has been a FA for less than a month, and the normal time between promotion and FAR is generally three to six months. As there were also multiple non-involved editors who disagreed with your FAR nomination, I have closed the review. I would suggest that you continue discussing your issues on the talk page of the article or the talk pages of the involved editors (I believe Iridescent ( talk · contribs) was the main force behind this article. If, in a minimum of three months, you feel the article still has problems, please feel free to bring it back to FAR. Dana boomer ( talk) 11:25, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Dana boomer is a FAR delegate, appointed by the featured article director, Raul654. She is completely within bounds to remove an improper FAR, per the instructions at WP:FAR. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 23:24, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
This behavior is disruptive in nature. Further disruption of the WP:FAR process, may result in a block on this account. -- Cirt ( talk) 23:09, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
(od) You mean like the independent review made of the Halkett Boat article by an academic expert in the area in his blog, which lavished praise on it? Skinny87 ( talk) 10:06, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Per your user page Q + A, I'm in an odd mood tonight. Odd enough to attempt to engage you.
Perhaps you misunderstand the purpose of Wikipedia. It is revolutionary because it puts knowledge into the hands of anyone who has an internet connection. It's free. No tuition fees. No library fines. No other costs associated with it.
No singular entity, no highly educated genius is on staff to tell us what to cover. We just cover it. There are some dangers to this, but it is the model Wikipedia is based on, and the community of which you are a part. The model and this community does not wait for or defer to a single authority to assign what important topics are. Some people don't like that. They stick to halls and cough in ink. Props to the people who pointed me to this poem recently, OR et WW.
So the only reason why the best scholarly summary of the topic you love the most does not exist here (or anywhere) is because you haven't written it. So write it. You may have doubts about the FA process and it's not a perfect system, but write one. Top to bottom. Go make yourself a highly educated genius, prepare yourself to sit with the guy who wrote the Britannica article on the same topic, if it exists at Britannica, and meet him as his level. Do it for readers, but most of all, do it for yourself.
If you are unwilling to understand exactly what writing an FA entails by going through the process of creating one, however, I hardly see how your criticism of it is valid. It seems more a question of what you are doing here. -- Moni3 ( talk) 02:25, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
I have seen that you edited some volleyball articles. Some players articles, most of them looks outdated. I would like to improve players by country. Could you please choose a country to contribute with? Please take a look on Yekaterina Gamova, Hélia Souza, Serena Ortolani and Kenia Carcaces for a model to follow. Please can you please improve some volleyball players with infobox and some addons? References are very important. Let me know. Oscar987 21:55, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
I apologize for bothering you. My nomination for worst punctuation on Wikipedia is here. [16] User:Deor edited away an otherwise readable article. [17] The "year's best" in the article refers to the "Year's Best Science Fiction Novel" series. Science-Fiction: The Early Years in 1992 and Science-Fiction: The Gernsback Years in 1999 [18] are the two Hugo Award nominees. His Guide to Supernatural Fiction is simply "massively learned." The article is short. If you could work your magic, I would be most grateful. Eudemis ( talk) 00:14, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Dear Piano,
You twice removed references to the Clarion Writers Workshop from an article I was working on. The second time, you admonished me not to repeat it.
You called it "commercial or promotional." When I said it was not, you responded by pointing out that its application fee is nonrefundable. You then said, "Paying money = commercial."
Since the application fee for every college and graduate school in America is also nonrefundable, or at least was when I was applying to college, by your logic those references should be deleted as well.
Clarion is run by the 501(c)(3) Clarion Foundation, which is about as close to the black-letter definition of "noncommercial" as you can get in the United States. Seventy-five writers are now engaged in a "write-a-thon" to raise money for the Foundation this summer. It regularly awards scholarships (sometimes full scholarships, as in the case of the Octavia Butler grant) to students who cannot afford the tuition.
Clarion is also the oldest (and arguably the best respected) training program for writers of fantasy and science ficiton in America. It was founded by Damon Knight and Kate Wilhelm, and has among its alumni (and current instructors) some of the most prominent names in the field. It is commonplace for writers to list it, not only in their published biographical statements, but also in their submission letters to publishing houses, magazines and literary agents.
I am (1) a published writer of science fiction and fantasy; (2) a Clarion graduate myself; (3) a member of the Science Fiction & Fantasy Writers of America; (3) a licensed attorney who has worked with nonprofits to obtain their 501(c)(3) status; (4) a senior university professor with expertise in contracts, discrimination and copyright. While I respect your judgment, in this particular instance I think you don't know what you're talking about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kschneyer ( talk • contribs) 03:50, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Hello Piano non troppo It says I have vanandalised a wikipedia page. I havent even been to that page you moron. What is wrong with you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.155.105.81 ( talk) 00:25, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
It doesn't seem to matter because I've been a victim of IP bias and someone rejected my edits anyway. "Unique challenges" is self-explanatory - there were more than 1,200 episodes produced. And as I said in my edit, most TV shows have no more than 200 episodes. Do the math. Incidentally I'm actually an administrator editing Wikipedia anonymously out of protest over changes to rules that I do not agree with. It's given me new appreciation for the bias against anonymous editors... 68.146.81.123 ( talk) 16:34, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
What a load of rubbish! They're often the most interesting part of an artcle - after the external links. Just my opinion (and experience), of course. -- Michael C. Price talk 15:06, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
heres what i wrote in reply to your message to the ip address : User talk:86.128.162.75
"Please understand that your statement, aimed as it is at an Ip address, serves no purpose. In the United Kingdom most Ip addresses are Floating not Fixed. So the individual who made that edit will prob never see this statement. If you wish to make the source and verification requirments clear about this article a better place would be in the disscussion page on the article. Presumably the individual who edited will then see your reverts and, i hope, your encouragement to provide sources and become a better user but to direct a complaint directly to an Ip is probably a waste of time! teknotiss (forgot to sign in)"
hope it saves you some time and effort in future —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.128.162.75 ( talk) 18:44, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
I saw from the history log that you previously edited the article, Charles Robinson (referee) in one capacity or another. I am only, for the record, contacting registered users who have edited the page as editors possessing an IP are subject to change at any point. This is a small notification to inform you that it has been nominated for deletion and a discussion is presently taking place on whether or not it should remain. If you wish to, please feel free to contribute any opinions you may have to the discussion. Thank you. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② talk 22:17, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
A process argument has opened on this page, to which you have contributed. Your comments are requested. The discussion is here (duplicated to all editors of this page) Xyl 54 ( talk) 01:24, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Ten years! |
---|
We miss you. Such a great user name, and writing quality. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 08:39, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
Hey, | |
I like your name. Heyurgr8 ( talk) 19:40, 5 November 2019 (UTC) |
The article Metaverse Shakespeare Company has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Doesn't seem to meet notability criteria, barely covered outside of primary sources
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
JaggedHamster (
talk) 20:05, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Metaverse Shakespeare Company until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
JaggedHamster ( talk) 15:15, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
Click here to create a new topic section on the page.
|
Hi Pnt, you have knowledge of the extent to which users actually hit links. I wonder whether you might be in a position to make a contribution [ [1]]. There are moves afoot to mandate repeat links within sections ... basically, everywhere an item occurs, although I suspect that extreme view will not succeed. Some editors seem to be under the impression that readers hit links a lot. Tony (talk) 14:47, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi Piano
Thought you might be interested in this discussion, to which I have added a link to your post at WP:LINKING on your webmaster perspective.
Although no one has reverted the link audits I've conducted in the main text of popular culture articles (a dozen or so), and one editor even expressed ample thanks on my talk page, recently a few zealots have started reverted the infobox links. The examples given on the template overleaf treat linking like wallpaper.
Tony
Hi. Can you provide you opinion on this matter? Thanks. Nightscream ( talk) 01:36, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
You removed reliably sourced information. The text makes it clear that it is an allegation, not that the allegations have been proven. You'll need to come up with a reason supported by actual policy in order to remove reliably sourced information. Please respond on the article's talk page. Cla68 ( talk) 23:30, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
As "The World's Most Beautiful Man" I feel it's important that this be relayed to the public. (Sourced to my mother.) Eudemis ( talk) 00:28, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
You accused me of vandalizing the Bias Tee article by correcting an obvious error where it says "Bas" instead of "Bias". You might wanna check that again. (141.20.49.4)
Ah, sry about that. Will try again. (141.20.49.4)
Ohh what you going to do. Block meh? ;)
Try discussing it on the on talk page for Zakir Naik before you make an edit. That way you can spare me time reverting your contentious edits. (Unsigned comment by 89.108.34.91 from Rome, Italy.)
I had offered Micheal a job as a development manager at a chain of Franchised restaurants, due to your attitude I have decided to withdraw the offer and Michael is now unemployed, congratulations on your good work. 212.238.41.6 ( talk) 12:56, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Whoa, whoa, slow down for a second. A ton of these articles you've been tagging definitely meet criteria. Second Nature (film) won three awards, one from the Mammoth Film Festival. Christian Jouanin discovered a new species of petrel, named after him, and described many others. And The Frail Tide is an album by a band with notability already established. Hold the tagging for a second. ALI nom nom 19:51, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Since I can't post on his page, I will respond here. Exactly how was directing you to get consensus (hey, didn't happen, not my fault) on your removing of sections on the WBAL-TV page considered "manag[ing] to rig the system to continue their behavior"? Everything we do from AfDs to putting a new system in place is done on the basis of consensus. That isn't my rule, that is the main rules the founders of Wikipedia put together when they started the site.
What I am hearing from several people is that my telling them to get consensus is being a "dictator" and not being "responsive"....what exactly would you like to be able to do? Be dictators yourself? You want to control me, but then you yourself would be the dictator. So, essentially, you are wanting to turn the tables. Don't work that way. We ALL (me, you, Drmies, everyone) gets consensus. I have it on my side with WP:TVS's rules (which have been backed up by consensus). If you wish to change those, you need to take it to TVS or RfC. Otherwise, things remain as they are. You are wanting to get your way and prevent me from keeping long established sections. That is yourself being a dictator and controlling. Can't have your cake and eat it too, my friend. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 17:45, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Piano, if you wish to give it another try at TVS, I'd be interested, if only to do away with some of the specious arguments recited above: 1. there is broad consensus for the inclusion of unverified and often trivial information; 2. if one deletes non-notable people one should delete notable ones as well; 3. if one cleans up one article one must do them all. I think TVS could do with an explicit rule along the line of what you proposed there earlier. Drmies ( talk) 18:43, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi Piano non troppo - I have removed your FAR nomination of Halkett boat because it is premature. This article has been a FA for less than a month, and the normal time between promotion and FAR is generally three to six months. As there were also multiple non-involved editors who disagreed with your FAR nomination, I have closed the review. I would suggest that you continue discussing your issues on the talk page of the article or the talk pages of the involved editors (I believe Iridescent ( talk · contribs) was the main force behind this article. If, in a minimum of three months, you feel the article still has problems, please feel free to bring it back to FAR. Dana boomer ( talk) 11:25, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Dana boomer is a FAR delegate, appointed by the featured article director, Raul654. She is completely within bounds to remove an improper FAR, per the instructions at WP:FAR. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 23:24, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
This behavior is disruptive in nature. Further disruption of the WP:FAR process, may result in a block on this account. -- Cirt ( talk) 23:09, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
(od) You mean like the independent review made of the Halkett Boat article by an academic expert in the area in his blog, which lavished praise on it? Skinny87 ( talk) 10:06, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Per your user page Q + A, I'm in an odd mood tonight. Odd enough to attempt to engage you.
Perhaps you misunderstand the purpose of Wikipedia. It is revolutionary because it puts knowledge into the hands of anyone who has an internet connection. It's free. No tuition fees. No library fines. No other costs associated with it.
No singular entity, no highly educated genius is on staff to tell us what to cover. We just cover it. There are some dangers to this, but it is the model Wikipedia is based on, and the community of which you are a part. The model and this community does not wait for or defer to a single authority to assign what important topics are. Some people don't like that. They stick to halls and cough in ink. Props to the people who pointed me to this poem recently, OR et WW.
So the only reason why the best scholarly summary of the topic you love the most does not exist here (or anywhere) is because you haven't written it. So write it. You may have doubts about the FA process and it's not a perfect system, but write one. Top to bottom. Go make yourself a highly educated genius, prepare yourself to sit with the guy who wrote the Britannica article on the same topic, if it exists at Britannica, and meet him as his level. Do it for readers, but most of all, do it for yourself.
If you are unwilling to understand exactly what writing an FA entails by going through the process of creating one, however, I hardly see how your criticism of it is valid. It seems more a question of what you are doing here. -- Moni3 ( talk) 02:25, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
I have seen that you edited some volleyball articles. Some players articles, most of them looks outdated. I would like to improve players by country. Could you please choose a country to contribute with? Please take a look on Yekaterina Gamova, Hélia Souza, Serena Ortolani and Kenia Carcaces for a model to follow. Please can you please improve some volleyball players with infobox and some addons? References are very important. Let me know. Oscar987 21:55, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
I apologize for bothering you. My nomination for worst punctuation on Wikipedia is here. [16] User:Deor edited away an otherwise readable article. [17] The "year's best" in the article refers to the "Year's Best Science Fiction Novel" series. Science-Fiction: The Early Years in 1992 and Science-Fiction: The Gernsback Years in 1999 [18] are the two Hugo Award nominees. His Guide to Supernatural Fiction is simply "massively learned." The article is short. If you could work your magic, I would be most grateful. Eudemis ( talk) 00:14, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Dear Piano,
You twice removed references to the Clarion Writers Workshop from an article I was working on. The second time, you admonished me not to repeat it.
You called it "commercial or promotional." When I said it was not, you responded by pointing out that its application fee is nonrefundable. You then said, "Paying money = commercial."
Since the application fee for every college and graduate school in America is also nonrefundable, or at least was when I was applying to college, by your logic those references should be deleted as well.
Clarion is run by the 501(c)(3) Clarion Foundation, which is about as close to the black-letter definition of "noncommercial" as you can get in the United States. Seventy-five writers are now engaged in a "write-a-thon" to raise money for the Foundation this summer. It regularly awards scholarships (sometimes full scholarships, as in the case of the Octavia Butler grant) to students who cannot afford the tuition.
Clarion is also the oldest (and arguably the best respected) training program for writers of fantasy and science ficiton in America. It was founded by Damon Knight and Kate Wilhelm, and has among its alumni (and current instructors) some of the most prominent names in the field. It is commonplace for writers to list it, not only in their published biographical statements, but also in their submission letters to publishing houses, magazines and literary agents.
I am (1) a published writer of science fiction and fantasy; (2) a Clarion graduate myself; (3) a member of the Science Fiction & Fantasy Writers of America; (3) a licensed attorney who has worked with nonprofits to obtain their 501(c)(3) status; (4) a senior university professor with expertise in contracts, discrimination and copyright. While I respect your judgment, in this particular instance I think you don't know what you're talking about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kschneyer ( talk • contribs) 03:50, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Hello Piano non troppo It says I have vanandalised a wikipedia page. I havent even been to that page you moron. What is wrong with you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.155.105.81 ( talk) 00:25, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
It doesn't seem to matter because I've been a victim of IP bias and someone rejected my edits anyway. "Unique challenges" is self-explanatory - there were more than 1,200 episodes produced. And as I said in my edit, most TV shows have no more than 200 episodes. Do the math. Incidentally I'm actually an administrator editing Wikipedia anonymously out of protest over changes to rules that I do not agree with. It's given me new appreciation for the bias against anonymous editors... 68.146.81.123 ( talk) 16:34, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
What a load of rubbish! They're often the most interesting part of an artcle - after the external links. Just my opinion (and experience), of course. -- Michael C. Price talk 15:06, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
heres what i wrote in reply to your message to the ip address : User talk:86.128.162.75
"Please understand that your statement, aimed as it is at an Ip address, serves no purpose. In the United Kingdom most Ip addresses are Floating not Fixed. So the individual who made that edit will prob never see this statement. If you wish to make the source and verification requirments clear about this article a better place would be in the disscussion page on the article. Presumably the individual who edited will then see your reverts and, i hope, your encouragement to provide sources and become a better user but to direct a complaint directly to an Ip is probably a waste of time! teknotiss (forgot to sign in)"
hope it saves you some time and effort in future —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.128.162.75 ( talk) 18:44, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
I saw from the history log that you previously edited the article, Charles Robinson (referee) in one capacity or another. I am only, for the record, contacting registered users who have edited the page as editors possessing an IP are subject to change at any point. This is a small notification to inform you that it has been nominated for deletion and a discussion is presently taking place on whether or not it should remain. If you wish to, please feel free to contribute any opinions you may have to the discussion. Thank you. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② talk 22:17, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
A process argument has opened on this page, to which you have contributed. Your comments are requested. The discussion is here (duplicated to all editors of this page) Xyl 54 ( talk) 01:24, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Ten years! |
---|
We miss you. Such a great user name, and writing quality. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 08:39, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
Hey, | |
I like your name. Heyurgr8 ( talk) 19:40, 5 November 2019 (UTC) |
The article Metaverse Shakespeare Company has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Doesn't seem to meet notability criteria, barely covered outside of primary sources
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
JaggedHamster (
talk) 20:05, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Metaverse Shakespeare Company until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
JaggedHamster ( talk) 15:15, 26 June 2023 (UTC)