This page is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
Archives: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 ∞ |
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of Bohemian F.C. players is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Bohemian F.C. players until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good 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 template from the top of the article. Giant Snowman 14:06, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi. Re "The other part of the problem is the implication that it's acceptable to add untrue material to the encyclopaedia. That implication needs qualifying and defining." - I think the source of that problem is "The threshold" in the statement, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability". This statement can be misinterpreted to mean that verifiability is a sufficient condition for inclusion, without considering requirements from other policies and guidelines, and without consideration of whether or not material would improve the article. I think this would be helped by simply adding the word "first", i.e. "The first threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability". Regards, Bob K31416 ( talk) 17:14, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Mr Marshall, I did try to read as much of the commentary about the first sentence of verifiability, but I confess my eyes glazed over half-way through the page (read from last post to earlier ones). I honestly didn't see your von Daeniken comment and came up with it only to avoid quoting a Jim Wales analogy about flat earth theory (to avoid the Jim Wales adoration society status).
I make no apologies about being nerdy in considering philosophical implications, but I see your point about the stick with which to beat the nutcases. I was hoping, though, to make the point that this stick exists without resort to 'not truth'. That is, however, a matter for judgement which I don't intend to make.
Appealing to your greater insight into that debate, would you care to venture a brief explanation as to why the bloody hell such an apparently trivial change has become a matter of such intractable controversy? Regards, Peter S Strempel | Talk 13:50, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Fundamentally, the opposers have a good faith belief in what they're writing. I think their debating tactics have not always been as clean as their motives, but I do understand very clearly where they're coming from.— S Marshall T/ C 18:26, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi S Marshall. Do you have access to any publications that will be helpful at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 September 2#Key industries? I've rewritten the article at User:Mrwalis/Key Industries but am uncertain that it will pass another AfD. Thank you, Cunard ( talk) 07:20, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Alex Day is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alex Day (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good 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 template from the top of the article. Lagrange613 ( talk) 21:29, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm getting a tiny bit annoyed at the mud being freely slung by User:Cerejota in the deletion review for Murder of Adrianne Reynolds. Am I being dense? Obtuse? I feel some anger from that user, and I'm not sure it's well-founded or well-placed. Further, it's totally against AGF. I mean, if something is being wrongly tracked, we have ANI, WT:AfD, SPI, any number of forums. Since we're already in an appropriate forum, I'm wondering why that user can't say exactly what is meant. Just casting aspersions is getting us nowhere. Do you have a sense? BusterD ( talk) 21:40, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Hello, S Marshall. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.-- Cerejota If you reply, please place a {{ talkback}} in my talk page if I do not reply soon. 07:43, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
I'd suggest just letting Cerejota have the last word and letting the thread die. Gerardw ( talk) 10:43, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
I've tried to leave him a graceful way to back out, but to be honest, I think Cerejota feels entitled to an outcome that doesn't place the blame squarely on him. He wants to think that what I've said is not justified, and he might seek that outcome elsewhere, since the WQA's given him very little satisfaction. I do think there's a pretty fair chance that I'll find myself at a RFC/U.
I would agree that it would be wise to let the thread die, but equally, where he asks me a question there, it behoves me to answer.— S Marshall T/ C 11:11, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Hello S Marshall. I generally like and agree with your views on inclusion of information and BLP concerns. If you could, I'd like to read your opinion on whether we should respect the wishes of a subject and her representatives to not include a basic personal fact (date of birth). Please see Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Xenia_Tchoumitcheva and Talk:Xenia Tchoumitcheva. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 12:04, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi S Marshall. As an uninvolved DRV regular, would you take a look here? I Cunard ( talk) 22:36, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi S Marshall, we've had some further discussion at Wikipedia:Bot_requests#Red_link_fixer - please let us know your thoughts on what the links should be changed to. Thanks, Hard Boiled Eggs [talk] 11:34, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Please solve this mystery if you can...
On September 23rd, traffic to Portal:James Bond doubled, and has stayed at the new level since then. I can't figure out what happened.
See http://stats.grok.se/en/201109/Portal%3AJames_Bond
Traffic to Outline of James Bond stayed the same (though it was at the higher-level already), which leads me to suspect changes made somewhere in Wikipedia.
See http://stats.grok.se/en/201109/Outline%20of%20James_Bond
I'd like to find out what happened, in case it reveals helpful link placement tips that can double the traffic to outlines too!
I look forward to your reply on my talk page. The Transhumanist 23:20, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi. I thank you for taking on closing deletion discusions, but I do not understand your reasoning for closing the following three Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clondalkin RFC Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Balbriggan RFC Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dublin City University RFC as keep. The reason given Nobody apart from the nominator thinks this material should be deleted seems a bit flawed to me as only two other people commented and there keeps were purely procedural (i.e they did not determine themselves whether the articles met WP:GNG. Another editor admin relisted them earlier and it seems a bit strange to close them after only a couple of hours of after this relisting. AIRcorn (talk) 11:44, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Owing to Alpha Quadrant's belief that I'm out to " harass" him, I can't get through to him that early closures should not be done unless there are good reasons to do so. You have frequently talked about providing a FairProcess at XfDs. Perhaps you'll be able to explain it better. Cunard ( talk) 04:59, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
You were correct above when you wrote that your involvement would no longer be productive. I should have followed your lead and withdrawn from the discussion. Cunard ( talk) 05:04, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Thankyou for participating in my request for adminship. Now I've got lots of extra buttons to try and avoid pressing by mistake... Redrose64 ( talk) 16:11, 14 October 2011 (UTC) |
About the DRV you commented on here, that editor is a problem. I think he has something of a problem understanding English, yet he is spending most of his time on "administrative" tasks such as AFDs, prods, tagging images, etc., for which he doesn't understand the policies and procedures and for which he is usually unable to present coherent comments. Which amounts to disruption. Check his talk page for some of my criticism, and to see how widespread the problem areas are. I've asked him repeatedly (both on his talk page and in some e-mails back and forth) to refrain from any of that and stick to normal article editing and participation in discussions others have started until he has some more practice and better comprehension. If you have the time, I'd appreciate it if you could take a look at his talk page and contribution history, and see if you have any input as to how this problem can be addressed. Cheers, postdlf ( talk) 16:48, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Ideally this editor would be persuaded to work with images or templates rather than the discussion process, but to divert him into that it will be necessary to open a meaningful channel of communication with him. Can we ascertain what his native language might be, and ask an editor from the appropriate Wikiproject to intervene? I would guess the subject editor is east Asian.— S Marshall T/ C 17:36, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Images and templates have also been a problem ( tagging with "no permission" image clearly identified as non-free; listing templates used for copyright investigation because he was unable to figure out that they are used and for what; tagging section of article with notability template because he didn't think the section was notable). Across the board, he's jumping to deletion nominations and tagging on matters that he doesn't understand rather than asking questions first; instead it often seems as if he's treating the deletion process as a talk page (particularly with his AFD nominations, often he says "I'll vote later"). You'd think someone would find a talk page easier to deal with than listing something at Templates for discussion. Which in a way makes me wonder whether we have the selective comprehension of a troll, but I'll assume good faith for now. postdlf ( talk) 18:01, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Of course, it might go the other way. You'll be aware that it's said that AGF isn't a suicide pact, and the possibility of a WP:COMPETENCE-related sanctions will no doubt have occurred to you.— S Marshall T/ C 19:09, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello S Marshall! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.
Please click
HERE to take part. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey. Global message delivery 13:06, 26 October 2011 (UTC) |
There are no circumstances in which it's okay to remove my talk page comments.
|
---|
It seemed wise to revert your recent edit here, per WP:BLP concerns. I think it probably needs to be reworded in a way that doesn't actually make outright claims of criminality. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 16:02, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
|
I was going to post "Bloody hell, not again", but it would come across as if I was mad at you, while I am actually frustrated with my own problems in signing things correctly. I somehow lose a tilde way too often. Thanks for correcting my sig here! Fram ( talk) 12:34, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
You may be interested in this. Peter jackson ( talk) 11:07, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
Archives: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 ∞ |
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of Bohemian F.C. players is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Bohemian F.C. players until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good 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 template from the top of the article. Giant Snowman 14:06, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi. Re "The other part of the problem is the implication that it's acceptable to add untrue material to the encyclopaedia. That implication needs qualifying and defining." - I think the source of that problem is "The threshold" in the statement, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability". This statement can be misinterpreted to mean that verifiability is a sufficient condition for inclusion, without considering requirements from other policies and guidelines, and without consideration of whether or not material would improve the article. I think this would be helped by simply adding the word "first", i.e. "The first threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability". Regards, Bob K31416 ( talk) 17:14, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Mr Marshall, I did try to read as much of the commentary about the first sentence of verifiability, but I confess my eyes glazed over half-way through the page (read from last post to earlier ones). I honestly didn't see your von Daeniken comment and came up with it only to avoid quoting a Jim Wales analogy about flat earth theory (to avoid the Jim Wales adoration society status).
I make no apologies about being nerdy in considering philosophical implications, but I see your point about the stick with which to beat the nutcases. I was hoping, though, to make the point that this stick exists without resort to 'not truth'. That is, however, a matter for judgement which I don't intend to make.
Appealing to your greater insight into that debate, would you care to venture a brief explanation as to why the bloody hell such an apparently trivial change has become a matter of such intractable controversy? Regards, Peter S Strempel | Talk 13:50, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Fundamentally, the opposers have a good faith belief in what they're writing. I think their debating tactics have not always been as clean as their motives, but I do understand very clearly where they're coming from.— S Marshall T/ C 18:26, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi S Marshall. Do you have access to any publications that will be helpful at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 September 2#Key industries? I've rewritten the article at User:Mrwalis/Key Industries but am uncertain that it will pass another AfD. Thank you, Cunard ( talk) 07:20, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Alex Day is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alex Day (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good 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 template from the top of the article. Lagrange613 ( talk) 21:29, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm getting a tiny bit annoyed at the mud being freely slung by User:Cerejota in the deletion review for Murder of Adrianne Reynolds. Am I being dense? Obtuse? I feel some anger from that user, and I'm not sure it's well-founded or well-placed. Further, it's totally against AGF. I mean, if something is being wrongly tracked, we have ANI, WT:AfD, SPI, any number of forums. Since we're already in an appropriate forum, I'm wondering why that user can't say exactly what is meant. Just casting aspersions is getting us nowhere. Do you have a sense? BusterD ( talk) 21:40, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Hello, S Marshall. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.-- Cerejota If you reply, please place a {{ talkback}} in my talk page if I do not reply soon. 07:43, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
I'd suggest just letting Cerejota have the last word and letting the thread die. Gerardw ( talk) 10:43, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
I've tried to leave him a graceful way to back out, but to be honest, I think Cerejota feels entitled to an outcome that doesn't place the blame squarely on him. He wants to think that what I've said is not justified, and he might seek that outcome elsewhere, since the WQA's given him very little satisfaction. I do think there's a pretty fair chance that I'll find myself at a RFC/U.
I would agree that it would be wise to let the thread die, but equally, where he asks me a question there, it behoves me to answer.— S Marshall T/ C 11:11, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Hello S Marshall. I generally like and agree with your views on inclusion of information and BLP concerns. If you could, I'd like to read your opinion on whether we should respect the wishes of a subject and her representatives to not include a basic personal fact (date of birth). Please see Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Xenia_Tchoumitcheva and Talk:Xenia Tchoumitcheva. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 12:04, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi S Marshall. As an uninvolved DRV regular, would you take a look here? I Cunard ( talk) 22:36, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi S Marshall, we've had some further discussion at Wikipedia:Bot_requests#Red_link_fixer - please let us know your thoughts on what the links should be changed to. Thanks, Hard Boiled Eggs [talk] 11:34, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Please solve this mystery if you can...
On September 23rd, traffic to Portal:James Bond doubled, and has stayed at the new level since then. I can't figure out what happened.
See http://stats.grok.se/en/201109/Portal%3AJames_Bond
Traffic to Outline of James Bond stayed the same (though it was at the higher-level already), which leads me to suspect changes made somewhere in Wikipedia.
See http://stats.grok.se/en/201109/Outline%20of%20James_Bond
I'd like to find out what happened, in case it reveals helpful link placement tips that can double the traffic to outlines too!
I look forward to your reply on my talk page. The Transhumanist 23:20, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi. I thank you for taking on closing deletion discusions, but I do not understand your reasoning for closing the following three Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clondalkin RFC Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Balbriggan RFC Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dublin City University RFC as keep. The reason given Nobody apart from the nominator thinks this material should be deleted seems a bit flawed to me as only two other people commented and there keeps were purely procedural (i.e they did not determine themselves whether the articles met WP:GNG. Another editor admin relisted them earlier and it seems a bit strange to close them after only a couple of hours of after this relisting. AIRcorn (talk) 11:44, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Owing to Alpha Quadrant's belief that I'm out to " harass" him, I can't get through to him that early closures should not be done unless there are good reasons to do so. You have frequently talked about providing a FairProcess at XfDs. Perhaps you'll be able to explain it better. Cunard ( talk) 04:59, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
You were correct above when you wrote that your involvement would no longer be productive. I should have followed your lead and withdrawn from the discussion. Cunard ( talk) 05:04, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Thankyou for participating in my request for adminship. Now I've got lots of extra buttons to try and avoid pressing by mistake... Redrose64 ( talk) 16:11, 14 October 2011 (UTC) |
About the DRV you commented on here, that editor is a problem. I think he has something of a problem understanding English, yet he is spending most of his time on "administrative" tasks such as AFDs, prods, tagging images, etc., for which he doesn't understand the policies and procedures and for which he is usually unable to present coherent comments. Which amounts to disruption. Check his talk page for some of my criticism, and to see how widespread the problem areas are. I've asked him repeatedly (both on his talk page and in some e-mails back and forth) to refrain from any of that and stick to normal article editing and participation in discussions others have started until he has some more practice and better comprehension. If you have the time, I'd appreciate it if you could take a look at his talk page and contribution history, and see if you have any input as to how this problem can be addressed. Cheers, postdlf ( talk) 16:48, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Ideally this editor would be persuaded to work with images or templates rather than the discussion process, but to divert him into that it will be necessary to open a meaningful channel of communication with him. Can we ascertain what his native language might be, and ask an editor from the appropriate Wikiproject to intervene? I would guess the subject editor is east Asian.— S Marshall T/ C 17:36, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Images and templates have also been a problem ( tagging with "no permission" image clearly identified as non-free; listing templates used for copyright investigation because he was unable to figure out that they are used and for what; tagging section of article with notability template because he didn't think the section was notable). Across the board, he's jumping to deletion nominations and tagging on matters that he doesn't understand rather than asking questions first; instead it often seems as if he's treating the deletion process as a talk page (particularly with his AFD nominations, often he says "I'll vote later"). You'd think someone would find a talk page easier to deal with than listing something at Templates for discussion. Which in a way makes me wonder whether we have the selective comprehension of a troll, but I'll assume good faith for now. postdlf ( talk) 18:01, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Of course, it might go the other way. You'll be aware that it's said that AGF isn't a suicide pact, and the possibility of a WP:COMPETENCE-related sanctions will no doubt have occurred to you.— S Marshall T/ C 19:09, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello S Marshall! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.
Please click
HERE to take part. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey. Global message delivery 13:06, 26 October 2011 (UTC) |
There are no circumstances in which it's okay to remove my talk page comments.
|
---|
It seemed wise to revert your recent edit here, per WP:BLP concerns. I think it probably needs to be reworded in a way that doesn't actually make outright claims of criminality. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 16:02, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
|
I was going to post "Bloody hell, not again", but it would come across as if I was mad at you, while I am actually frustrated with my own problems in signing things correctly. I somehow lose a tilde way too often. Thanks for correcting my sig here! Fram ( talk) 12:34, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
You may be interested in this. Peter jackson ( talk) 11:07, 25 November 2011 (UTC)