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 ∞ |
Thank you for giving me a new page patrollers barnstar. If you ever want to look at it, I've put it here. Again, thanks a lot, I appreciate it. I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a {{ Talkback}} message on my talk page. @ 01:30, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
I am not going to be able to have much time for this. DGG ( talk ) 16:33, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
If you're interested, could I ask you to consider commenting on this? - Simon Dodd { U· T· C· WP:LAW } 17:44, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
My immediate reaction is that in order to show a WP:CANVASS issue, it would first be necessary to establish that the specifically-focussed list would be likely to !vote or think in a way likely to prejudice the discussion in one direction or another. And even the action of trying to establish that could run foul of a behavioural guideline.
Personally, I agree that there are some groups of users whose involvement could be seen as prejudicial to AfD. For example, the article rescue squadron have been accused of block-!voting to retain unencyclopaedic material; and those who make those accusations are often, themselves, part of an identifiable block who do little else but !vote to remove content. I think such associations of editors are an inevitable byproduct of the system, given human nature.
I do not yet see that the specific group involved in this case is so narrowly-focussed as to represent a block-!vote, and if that allegation were made in open forum, I would reply by asking for evidence. But I would not dismiss it out of hand, because there may be a case to answer.— S Marshall Talk/ Cont 02:49, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
As you can see at Template_talk:Did_you_know#A_Failure_of_Capitalism, I cut out a bit. Is it too late to add the image? Bearian ( talk) 20:26, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
On the same day when you closed this as withdrawn by nominator, the subject requested to info-en-q@wikipedia.org to take it down (copy in my mailbox). Shouldn't the case be relisted or what's the correct course of action? The case, imo, fits the "relatively unknown, non-public figures, where the subject has requested deletion AND there is no rough consensus" clause of deletion policy. NVO ( talk) 04:37, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Are you aware that the opinion you gave in the schools in roumania deletion review can upset the practical balance of every merged article closing in Wikipedia? What's the use of arguing merge and redirect during a AfD is what is said has no effect? If "Tone's closure established that this article should be a bluelink, and any remaining decision does not require administrative tools and is not a matter for an admin." why do we include that in our closings at all? Essentially, this forces a second debate on each disputed article. I don't have a solution for this, but it will need longer discussion. DGG ( talk ) 00:13, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
"Merge", "redirect" and "keep" all have exactly the same practical effect: they decide that an article should be a bluelink on Wikipedia and leave the rest of it up to the editors. And I think that's quite right. AfD decisions should not be binding over the future evolution of a page.— S Marshall Talk/ Cont 00:20, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
My opinion on the weight of AfD closures, which I believe has some support: If the closing statement is an evaluation of consensus (not an independent editor action), it should be respected as consensus, with weight appropriate to the venue and participation (and age per WP:Consensus can change). Overriding the decision usually requires another discussion to end with a consensus as described in WP:N3D. I think that BOLDly redirecting keep as separate article or restoring redirect closes should be discouraged – rather than using BRD when a dispute is already known, why not jump directly to Discuss? Flatscan ( talk) 03:59, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
I think AfD and DRV are flawed processes, and their decisions are often bad. They should be as easy to reverse as possible.— S Marshall Talk/ Cont 08:23, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Notice: You commented in an Article for deletion for Timewave zero , an RfC has been opened on whether this article should be replaced with Redirect. Please comment on the above link. Lumos3 ( talk) 15:30, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Very small typo, very big (from my perspective) change in meaning. I wrote that a content dispute shouldn't be addressed as a deletion discussion, meaning (or intending to mean) that since both "sides" agree that an acceptable article on the subject could be written, the should be addressed by ordinary editing, not going to AFD. You quoted that my comment as at a deletion discussion, a much broader claim that I, like you, disagree with. No a big deal, of course, but one of those things I like to keep straight. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 23:16, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Dear colleague, I just want to wish you a happy, hopefully, extended holiday weekend and nice end to summer! Your friend, -- A Nobody My talk 05:50, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
You commented at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The U. There appears to be a need for a third opinion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Racepacket at University of Miami and related articles and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Universities#Help with "The U" if you have a mind for it. Uncle G ( talk) 02:00, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
I am Hedi Enghelberg and I want to understand your statement about the article: Hedi Enghelberg how do you know me and my work?
present your creditials in the literrary world. you have any academic or university diplomas you have any published books or articles? you have received any literary award? you have any pier-reviews of your work? do you have contributed with your work for this World to be a better place?>
Why you have post my article for deletion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Enghelberg ( talk • contribs) 14:31, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
I do not know you or your work. However, I believe that Wikipedia policy requires that the article about you should be removed for the moment.
In answer to your questions:
I did not nominate the article about you for deletion. I did recommend that it should be deleted, and I explained my reasoning in the debate.— S Marshall Talk/ Cont 15:10, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
I just wanted to let you know that you did an excellent job on your closing summary. You made it very clear what was decided, what was still in play, and what were the appropriate venues to continue the discussion. Thanks. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:34, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Since you participated in Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 September 4#Ashida Kim, which was closed as relist, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashida Kim (7th nomination). Cunard ( talk) 08:05, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
After your wonderful WP:BEFORE suggestion on WT:AFD, I haven't seen you for a while, it is wonderful to see your comments on userfication. Thank you. Ikip ( talk) 18:45, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
— Jake Wartenberg 06:42, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Nice article, but do you see my point? To say "Up to 90m" is meaningless in the context. Does it mean in the UK or the US? It suggests that specimens in the UK reach that height, which is – to date – very far from the truth. They might not get anywhere near that; who knows what diseases they might get, how they will respond to climate change etc? And if you put up to 90m under S. giganteum, why not put up to 110m under S. sempervirens (a taller tree), or similar under A. grandis, A. procera, P. menziesii, P. sitchensis, all v tall trees? Or bluegums? Or oaks? And why not put "up to 8m dbh" under S. giganteum? It might be interesting to note that the Yanks were put out with our naming it Wellingtonia and called it Washingtonia. Regards, Ericoides ( talk) 08:34, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
I just saw that the article passed GA, congratulations :-) Nev1 ( talk) 20:43, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
I am very sorry for late reply. The voting has already closed but artist/model has significant presence in mainstream Nepali media to have an article in wikipedia. Just skimming through the discussion, I found that the article has been referenced and facts like the artist being Miss Tamang and an entertainer has already been stated, so I dont think I need to state them again. Most of the Nepali media is not very active online esp in English, so it might be hard to find online sources to reference. This might have been the case here. Despite the deletion, I think the article should stay. Thank you.-- Eukesh ( talk) 04:40, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
I think we'll need to create an article from scratch for Zenisha Moktan.
Cheers— S Marshall Talk/ Cont 06:45, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
They make it hard don't they. \ Backslash Forwardslash / ( talk) 11:10, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
This is a separate discussion from the merits of your change to WP:V, so I'll bring it up here: your invocation of WP:SILENCE was patently ridiculous.
At what point and for how long was I silent? Am I required to comment on every discussion every fifteen minutes in order to not be seen as consenting to changes that I have already specifically objected to?— Kww( talk) 21:58, 17 September 2009 (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 ∞ |
Thank you for giving me a new page patrollers barnstar. If you ever want to look at it, I've put it here. Again, thanks a lot, I appreciate it. I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a {{ Talkback}} message on my talk page. @ 01:30, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
I am not going to be able to have much time for this. DGG ( talk ) 16:33, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
If you're interested, could I ask you to consider commenting on this? - Simon Dodd { U· T· C· WP:LAW } 17:44, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
My immediate reaction is that in order to show a WP:CANVASS issue, it would first be necessary to establish that the specifically-focussed list would be likely to !vote or think in a way likely to prejudice the discussion in one direction or another. And even the action of trying to establish that could run foul of a behavioural guideline.
Personally, I agree that there are some groups of users whose involvement could be seen as prejudicial to AfD. For example, the article rescue squadron have been accused of block-!voting to retain unencyclopaedic material; and those who make those accusations are often, themselves, part of an identifiable block who do little else but !vote to remove content. I think such associations of editors are an inevitable byproduct of the system, given human nature.
I do not yet see that the specific group involved in this case is so narrowly-focussed as to represent a block-!vote, and if that allegation were made in open forum, I would reply by asking for evidence. But I would not dismiss it out of hand, because there may be a case to answer.— S Marshall Talk/ Cont 02:49, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
As you can see at Template_talk:Did_you_know#A_Failure_of_Capitalism, I cut out a bit. Is it too late to add the image? Bearian ( talk) 20:26, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
On the same day when you closed this as withdrawn by nominator, the subject requested to info-en-q@wikipedia.org to take it down (copy in my mailbox). Shouldn't the case be relisted or what's the correct course of action? The case, imo, fits the "relatively unknown, non-public figures, where the subject has requested deletion AND there is no rough consensus" clause of deletion policy. NVO ( talk) 04:37, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Are you aware that the opinion you gave in the schools in roumania deletion review can upset the practical balance of every merged article closing in Wikipedia? What's the use of arguing merge and redirect during a AfD is what is said has no effect? If "Tone's closure established that this article should be a bluelink, and any remaining decision does not require administrative tools and is not a matter for an admin." why do we include that in our closings at all? Essentially, this forces a second debate on each disputed article. I don't have a solution for this, but it will need longer discussion. DGG ( talk ) 00:13, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
"Merge", "redirect" and "keep" all have exactly the same practical effect: they decide that an article should be a bluelink on Wikipedia and leave the rest of it up to the editors. And I think that's quite right. AfD decisions should not be binding over the future evolution of a page.— S Marshall Talk/ Cont 00:20, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
My opinion on the weight of AfD closures, which I believe has some support: If the closing statement is an evaluation of consensus (not an independent editor action), it should be respected as consensus, with weight appropriate to the venue and participation (and age per WP:Consensus can change). Overriding the decision usually requires another discussion to end with a consensus as described in WP:N3D. I think that BOLDly redirecting keep as separate article or restoring redirect closes should be discouraged – rather than using BRD when a dispute is already known, why not jump directly to Discuss? Flatscan ( talk) 03:59, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
I think AfD and DRV are flawed processes, and their decisions are often bad. They should be as easy to reverse as possible.— S Marshall Talk/ Cont 08:23, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Notice: You commented in an Article for deletion for Timewave zero , an RfC has been opened on whether this article should be replaced with Redirect. Please comment on the above link. Lumos3 ( talk) 15:30, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Very small typo, very big (from my perspective) change in meaning. I wrote that a content dispute shouldn't be addressed as a deletion discussion, meaning (or intending to mean) that since both "sides" agree that an acceptable article on the subject could be written, the should be addressed by ordinary editing, not going to AFD. You quoted that my comment as at a deletion discussion, a much broader claim that I, like you, disagree with. No a big deal, of course, but one of those things I like to keep straight. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 23:16, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Dear colleague, I just want to wish you a happy, hopefully, extended holiday weekend and nice end to summer! Your friend, -- A Nobody My talk 05:50, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
You commented at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The U. There appears to be a need for a third opinion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Racepacket at University of Miami and related articles and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Universities#Help with "The U" if you have a mind for it. Uncle G ( talk) 02:00, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
I am Hedi Enghelberg and I want to understand your statement about the article: Hedi Enghelberg how do you know me and my work?
present your creditials in the literrary world. you have any academic or university diplomas you have any published books or articles? you have received any literary award? you have any pier-reviews of your work? do you have contributed with your work for this World to be a better place?>
Why you have post my article for deletion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Enghelberg ( talk • contribs) 14:31, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
I do not know you or your work. However, I believe that Wikipedia policy requires that the article about you should be removed for the moment.
In answer to your questions:
I did not nominate the article about you for deletion. I did recommend that it should be deleted, and I explained my reasoning in the debate.— S Marshall Talk/ Cont 15:10, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
I just wanted to let you know that you did an excellent job on your closing summary. You made it very clear what was decided, what was still in play, and what were the appropriate venues to continue the discussion. Thanks. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:34, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Since you participated in Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 September 4#Ashida Kim, which was closed as relist, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashida Kim (7th nomination). Cunard ( talk) 08:05, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
After your wonderful WP:BEFORE suggestion on WT:AFD, I haven't seen you for a while, it is wonderful to see your comments on userfication. Thank you. Ikip ( talk) 18:45, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
— Jake Wartenberg 06:42, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Nice article, but do you see my point? To say "Up to 90m" is meaningless in the context. Does it mean in the UK or the US? It suggests that specimens in the UK reach that height, which is – to date – very far from the truth. They might not get anywhere near that; who knows what diseases they might get, how they will respond to climate change etc? And if you put up to 90m under S. giganteum, why not put up to 110m under S. sempervirens (a taller tree), or similar under A. grandis, A. procera, P. menziesii, P. sitchensis, all v tall trees? Or bluegums? Or oaks? And why not put "up to 8m dbh" under S. giganteum? It might be interesting to note that the Yanks were put out with our naming it Wellingtonia and called it Washingtonia. Regards, Ericoides ( talk) 08:34, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
I just saw that the article passed GA, congratulations :-) Nev1 ( talk) 20:43, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
I am very sorry for late reply. The voting has already closed but artist/model has significant presence in mainstream Nepali media to have an article in wikipedia. Just skimming through the discussion, I found that the article has been referenced and facts like the artist being Miss Tamang and an entertainer has already been stated, so I dont think I need to state them again. Most of the Nepali media is not very active online esp in English, so it might be hard to find online sources to reference. This might have been the case here. Despite the deletion, I think the article should stay. Thank you.-- Eukesh ( talk) 04:40, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
I think we'll need to create an article from scratch for Zenisha Moktan.
Cheers— S Marshall Talk/ Cont 06:45, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
They make it hard don't they. \ Backslash Forwardslash / ( talk) 11:10, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
This is a separate discussion from the merits of your change to WP:V, so I'll bring it up here: your invocation of WP:SILENCE was patently ridiculous.
At what point and for how long was I silent? Am I required to comment on every discussion every fifteen minutes in order to not be seen as consenting to changes that I have already specifically objected to?— Kww( talk) 21:58, 17 September 2009 (UTC)