This is an archive of past discussions with User:Excirial. 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.
What's with trying to speedy delete the page I made?
Do you not agree that getting a good night's sleep is very important? In any case, it is by no means nonsense. Bongout (talk) 12:06, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Oh, i completely agree that a good night sleep is quite important. However in its current state, the article simply doesn't comply to with the inlusion guidelines (To be completely honest, i think it doesn't comply to even one of article policies). I placed the "Nonsense (G1)" because the article was an unsalvageably incoherent page with no meaningful contentExcirial (Talk,Contribs)12:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Report being discusses can be found here Thank you for making a report about Mccainbane (talk·contribs) at Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention. Unfortunately, your report has been removed due to the username not violating policy, or not being blatant enough for a block. Please remember you should only post infringements on this page if they are so serious that the user needs to be blocked immediately. Others should be discussed with the user in question first, for example using the {{Uw-username}} template. A request for comment can be filed if the user disagrees that their name is against the username policy, or has continued to edit after you have expressed your concern. Thank you. Is he back? (talk) 14:07, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Funny you still managed to dig this one up, as i noticed its removal yesterday. The username being issued was, as stated, a pure information report requesting if such usernames would warrant template. Excirial (Talk,Contribs)14:18, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
The POV problem
Your right, but if you ask an Ossetian he will clearly say what you propose is a POV. Because they clearly say that this war cant be blamed wy them wanting independence, because they waited for the peace talk. Chrystal Blue Moon (talk) 14:33, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but remember that most things sayd by Ossetians, Russians and Georgians would all be WP:BIAS at this time. Even your comment here contains a bias, even if you would not recognize it as such. From your point of view, the Ossetians can't be blamed for the war. Yet i am completely sure that if i asked someone on the other side of the battlefield, i would get a story about them provoking the attack.
See that i am aiming at? A point of view is someones own opinion on a matter. But for the article, it does not even matter who is right and who is wrong. Only facts should be listed, and readers should then draw their own conclusions based upon the information provided. :) Excirial (Talk,Contribs)14:47, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
I have to admit i am not exactly a writer. Most of my time is spend checking nice articles against the WP:CSD criteria, and the few articles i made myself were static technical topics that contained no bias. However, adding comments such as "Ossetians claim" or "Excirial sayd" would at least list the source where the claim comes from. This is actually one of the reasons why Wikipedia demands sources for articles, especially on the ones that might contain a lot of PoV.
Also, make sure that both sides gain equal attention this way; As long as the claims from both sides are even and sourced, there should not be much PoV as both sides are heard. Regardless, keep the amount of such comments to a minimum. After all, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia focusing on facts, and not an opinion (WP:NOTOPINION) Excirial (Talk,Contribs)14:59, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Right now the case is you try to make an edit, 10 people edit at the same time. I belive there will be nutrality. Edit wars--->Fighters getting tyred--->Some fall asleep, some shoot themselves, and some agree on a concensus. Edit wars is a wonderful thing. What i try to do is make shure the terms will be ok. The sources for the claims are in the text itself. Chrystal Blue Moon (talk) 15:03, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, another trajectory would be Edit war => WP:AN3 => WP:RPP => WP:AIAV => WP:ARBCOM. I have seen more then a few editors ending up being temporarily blocked or sanctioned (Most times a ban on editing specific articles) because of edit warring. Granted, those cases were much more extensive and vandalistic then this simple disagreement, but WP:NPOV is still one of the core policies on wikipedia. Blatantly breaking that policy continuously or getting in edit wars often is literally direction:trouble :). Excirial (Talk,Contribs)15:10, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
I right now insist only on the peacekeepers thing. In the talk page discussion like, 4 people are on, including me. On the revert part, 400 people (guess some people always like the fun part more). Chrystal Blue Moon (talk) 15:19, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, if consensus can be reached on the talk page, this generally goes for consensus of what will be in the article. Anyone editing discussed subject will then be bound to those rulings. or otherwise, it is revertible par the talk page. Excirial (Talk,Contribs)15:23, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Language identification
Articles needed translation - User talk:SoWhy
While it was not necessarily to mention me at the needing translation page, i do appreciate the thought :). Apart from that, If you need a language identified again you will probably find this link just as useful as i find it.
I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Zubed, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks!
Thank you for the notice, and i agree the article looks ok now. It could use some more sources to establish notability, but seeing its so well well within CSD guidelines, i do not see the need to start an AFD on the article. Im tagging enough articles for removal as is, no need to tag the good ones as well ;) Excirial (Talk,Contribs)17:05, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
I just want to point out that you Prodded the article 1 minute after it was created. Do you normally prod articles so soon after they are created?--Rockfang (talk) 07:29, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Jan de Baen
Apart from the fact that I've just started the article Jan de Baen and it is still rather short, what kind of copyediting does the article need? – Ilse@18:46, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Just a very minor thing really: It had a bit of a translated feeling to it when i read it. Does it happen to be a translation from a Dutch language text? While im not exactly good at grammar, it seems to have the same sentence constructions i would use myself when translation an article (Which is generally taken, not a good thing).
The source I used for the text did not contain any complete sentences. I'll look into the matter, and I'll try to improve the text. – Ilse@18:59, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
SSP page
I don't know how you can delete an article with multiple sources and with more sources coming. I also do not take kindly to being accused of sock puppetry. This is my first account on Wikipedia and already I have an extremely negative impression. You cannot go around blindly and ignorantly making accusations without any proof.MrRolfe (talk) 19:53, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Ok, i will just forward this to WP:SSP then. IF i am wrong, you have my most humble apologies. However, seeing you create the exact same article, with the exact same username reference, from an account with a similar name blocked yesterday, i highly doubt your a true new account. Excirial (Talk,Contribs)19:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
User talk:Jafib
This Journal has been recently launched focusing on patient education under creative commons license as an open access journal. The uniqueness of this journal is in engaging the entire community of practice (CoP) starting for researchers, clinicians, nursing staff and patients into a single communication platform. This approach of social networking around scientific publishing is novel.
I don't see any response to the issue the article has. Currently the article seems written in a way it is only there to promote the magazine. Wikipedia is not for advertising and all articles must be written in a Neutral point of View. Also, the article is not sourced, but for now that is not as important as the advertising. Excirial (Talk,Contribs)23:04, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree that the language is overly promotional ("JAFIB publishes high quality original papers and reviews that make a significant contribution...", for example) but I don't think it's bad enough for speedy deletion. I've changed it for an advertisement template. The article also lacks reliable third party sources which establish its notability: some will need to be found to keep it from nomination for deletion. Good luck finding some! Olaf Davis | Talk23:16, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
I have seen articles with less spam being removed trough G11. I have been trying to envision how this article would look once all the spam would have been cut for it, but more then a stub which does not asses notability can not be created from this mess. Since someone else then the original creator removed the CSD, i will treat this as if the article has been prodded. I will check the article in 5 days and if its still in this shape, i will forward it to AFD or re-CSD it. Excirial (Talk,Contribs)23:43, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Thanks for your feedback. We have started adding the external references. Being a new journal we will need some more issues before we get into Pubmed. But we have already approached Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) and Google Scholar for indexing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jafib (talk • contribs) 23:56, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
FWIW, it is very hard to show notability for a brand new journal. Please see the general discussions on journal notability at Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals. This isn't especially about journals, but any new project. Wikipedia can not be used for purposes of publicity. DGG (talk) 03:49, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree with your judgement. We will wait until we get indexed in Pubmed and revisit Wikipedia with more enough external references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jafib (talk • contribs) 15:34, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
User talk:Blonz
I am attempting to add accurate personal information, some of which also occurs on my own website, blonz.com. I apologize if this was done incorrectly. I am a former professor and nationally syndicated columnist, and also work as an expert for several government organizations. I have seen others with lesser credentials on Wikipedia and had wondered how this happens. Friends had told me that one has to do it themself, so there you have it. Please let me know how to proceed here.
Blonz (talk)
Actually, this article is in violation of two rules. The first rule is WP:COPYVIO. In short a wikipedia article must never be a direct copy from a source that has no free liscence. Second, and perhaps more important, is that this article is both based upon a self punished source WP:RS and at the same time an Autobiography. Autobiographies are strongly discouraged, and are most times removed. As often put: If you are truly notable, then someone will start an article about you sooner or later :) Excirial (Talk,Contribs)23:01, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
AfD nomination of Lutherwood Camp and Retreat Center
I find it intersting that no one tried to expand an article you Proded, Castle of Thy, in the five days that it had the tag. Such a ssin, but luckily I saved it. It's incredibly stubby, but at least it is more than nothing and contains a ref. (I don't know why I'm saying this, basically just as a random announcement. I am a random person. )(: --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed]17:56, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Calpernia Addams
Dear Excirial, I am addressing you here to clarify mud that has been slung around the Calpernia Addams article. Since such discussion provides no benefit to the actual article, your talk page seems the appropriate forum. The first glob of "mud" I'd like to discuss is the accusation of Wikipedia rules violations. While I have read many articles, I have edited few. I have far better things to do than research Wikipedia rules, especially since one can get by just fine on common sense. That being said, I have not accused anyone of breaking any rules for the simple fact that I have not read the rule book. So where does this rule violation history originate? Consider these rules:
WP:AGF - Assuming good faith means making an honest attempt to find consensus within the community. We may each edit articles on the assumption that everybody will agree, but when there is debate, we should turn to the talk pages and seek consensus. If you kindly review the text in which I addressed you by name, you will notice that I did not accuse you of bad faith, but requested that you discuss the reasons for the changes first. I understand I was very bold by stating "We do not add UNNECESSARY and IRRELEVANT information that only serves to offend." This was in response to your reversion of the article back to the original Otto4711 version. Ironically, you later commended me for removing the murder reference in the middle of a sentence about Calpernia's awards. And this is my point. I don't care about WP:AGF, I just want to have friendly debate over whether a piece of information contributes to the success of the article. When blanket reverts are made, it stiffles communication and consensus.
WP:SPA - Okay, I was laughing my a** off when I read your response. Let me begin with a quote from you, "controversial AFD debates tend to attract a myrad of WP:SPA accounts and anonymous IP's that try to alter the article to either emphasize on, or remove the controversial subject. This is also the reason why i reverted your edit [...]" From this quote, there are two interpretations:
1)This article attracts SPA's and anonymous IP's. These groups make biased edits. I, Stephen, am a anonymous IP. Therefore, my edit is biased and should be reverted.
2)This article attracts SPA's and anonymous IP's. These groups are attracted to fix bias. You, Excirial, are a SPA. Therefore, your revert was intended to correct bias.
I had no idea you were a new account, so I read your quote under the first interpretation. Understandably, this was insulting. However, since YOU knew you were a new account, you read the quote under the second interpretation. Understandably, you must have been very confused why I was insulted. In truth, we are both arrived at the article trying to improve it. Let's just laugh it off as a misunderstanding.
Finally, I would like to address the mud about vengence. Never, did I explicitly state that YOU were taking revenge on Calpernia. The quote to which you may refer was directed at the Wikipedia community as a whole. If one reads the debates, it becomes clear that Calpernia is honestly hurt by this article - albeit unjustified. She took many extreme steps to remove information before pleading to the community for assistance. As Calpernia kneel before us begging for a stripped down article, our Wikipedia community laughed at her. Members quoted notibility rules and biographies of living persons rules as an excuse to maintain an article filled with references to the brutal murder of Barry Winchell. I am ashamed of us as Wikipedians. Thus, my quote stated that we, as in all of us, should respect Calpernia and only include relevent information that serves an educational value. When you reverted all the changes without explaination, you disrespected the humanity of Calpernia. I would rather have seen you debate why such information should be included.
While your writing is emotional and poorly organized, I have seen from your actions, and the follow-up of your actions, that your intentions are honorable. I sincerely hope this has clarified any misunderstandings that have occured. It has been a pleasure editing with you, and wish you to know I hold you in the highest regard.
WP:SPA. Actually, none of the interpretations you made matches the ideology of the revert. For clarities sake, this is the reference i was trying to make:
controversial AFD debates tend to attract a myrad of WP:SPA accounts and anonymous IP's => The reason why i am suddenly interested in the article.
try to alter the article to either emphasize on, or remove the controversial subject => What i am trying to counter with my presence.
The reason for reversing your edit lies within the second sentence, and not within the first. The edit seemed to tilt the article to "Do not include at all", which is too extreme a viewpoint to support, especially since there was still a debate going on about the inclusion of the murder in the article. However, i agree that consolidating those two sentences along with the reason for my revert is easily misinterpreted for the explanations you stated; And in a sense, they might actually be more logical.
Second, i don't think the wikipedia community was especially disrespectful or vengeful by quoting rules such as WP:BLP or WP:BIO at the AFD of the article. An AFD is a request for removal, not for improvement. As of such, the AFD focused on the matter if ms. Calpernia was notable enough, and if the article did not heavily violate the WP:BLP guidelines. As no issues were present, the AFD outcome for this article ended up being keep. However, a keep does not automatically mean that an article should not be improved. I fully agree that the article focused to much on the murder, which raised the need to cut certain unneeded parts out(including the one i commended you for). Due to these changes i think that in its current form the article reached an acceptable state for everyone involved(I sincerely hope that also applies to ms. Calpernia). While the murder is still present, it is no longer such a major part of the article. Excirial (Talk,Contribs)09:23, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
★★ Please Help Me ★★
I had just finished posting my firsy article.. I even stayed up till 7:33am to get it done.. no sleep.... so tired -----_-----
soon after posting it you deleted it.. I thought this might be an error so I tried reposting it and it got deleted again.. I'm not really sure what is wrong with the article I tried my best to make it "encyclopedic" please help me what do I need to do or change to make it work if anything.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by EstRMJr (talk • contribs) 14:36, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
I remember this particular article pretty well, and i found it a shame to remove it, as it obviously had quite some work put into it. However, at the same time it was breaching a few important guidelines in such a way that the article had to be removed.
These are the core guidelines articles have to be met mote or less: Neutral Point of View, Notability and Verifibility.
The first one, Neutral Point of View, rules that an article has to be witting from a neutral stance, as if someone is just plain describing the subject. When writing an article, don't just highlight the good things of H.U.G.S, and try to avoid any "Peacock" words and sentences such as "An excellent player in the ... market" and "Of Exceptional quality". Those lines are most times indications that an article is in the area of advertising, which almost always causes deletion. This was actually one of the major flaws in the H.U.G.S article, as virtually everything inside the article was based upon personal opinions and praise. Full details can be found at WP:NPOV. Also have a look at WP:ADVERT
The second one, Notability, rules that to be on Wikipedia, the articles subject needs to have some kind of importance which warrants an encyclopedia article. For example an article about Google is notable because Google is the worlds biggest search engine. An article of the butcher on the corner here is an example of an article of would not be notable. For organisation, notability is most times established trough citings publishings in secondary sources. Full guidelines on that can be found at WP:ORG.
And the last one, verifibility, rules that any claims made in the article must be sources with articles from external, independant third party sources. More or less speaks for itsself. Full details can be found at WP:CITE.
I think I understand whats wrong with it.. lose the "Peacock" words and sentences.. but for notability and "verifibility" I have a question... If notability is most times established trough citings publishings in secondary sources, could that secondary source be sources for "verifibility" with articles from external, independant third party sources?
For example, if HUGS has articles written about in from a church, has been considered for US grants, or has been praised by Oprah's Radio Talk Show.. would any of those help me get the article up?? Thank you for your help... sorry I'm not really sure how to leave a sig or time..
P.S. ...I'm pretty tired... and I think I should get some sleep.. my head is starting to hurt.. is there any suggestions or tips you could give me to help get the page up? Also is there anyway I can work with you to help fix the page? As in I make the page and have you review it since you know the page..
—Preceding unsigned comment added by EstRMJr (talk • contribs) 15:04, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
As for signing a post, add four tildes (~~~~) to the end of your post)
Whew, nice question. The notability guidelines are incredibly broad since they got to cover every single article present on Wikipedia. If you are going for presumed notability, you will have to add sources that meet this line: If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable.. Now, since this is also very broad, there is generally some form of discussion by editors to create consensus in specific topics. As of such, the commentary i give here is mostly based upon personal intrepretation, backed with a bit of experience from previous cases.
Church written articles: This one would definitely fail the guidelines. Apart from being no major third party source, the source would also not be independent, as both the church and the institute would share a clear link trough religion.
US grants: I would say this could be a nice start for establishing notability. Most times grants are only given if an organization meets certain criteria, which means that if a government grant is given, an organization could well be notable. At least it indicates that the organization is not something that only consists of non serious activity on a city block scale.
Oprah's Radio Talk Show: Hard to say if this is notable, it really depends upon the size of the article, and upon the focus of it. If the organisation is just mentioned between two lines then its a definite no, but if it received significant coverage in a news item, it could very well be a yes.
Generally taken the best sources are newspapers. Did H.U.G.S happen to get any coverage in the somewhat larger newspapers? Sufficiently large newspapers are of course country or state wide newspapers, but also slightly smaller newspapers (Part state coverage) might be acceptable. Excirial (Talk,Contribs)15:27, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Good call
I was a bit startled that such elementary terms as Buyers market and Sellers market did not seem to exist nor redirect to anything. But indeed, the apostrophe makes all the difference. Good call creating the redirect; it may have been a redundant article, but it is certainly a plausible typo (With me already being an example for that) Excirial (Talk,Contribs)17:58, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
:-) Apologies for not getting to let you know on your talk page before you got to me; discussion with another editor intervened. Ros0709 (talk) 18:00, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
You mentioned in the Edit Summary for Naradada that it still required a lot of cleanup - I've tried to do this, but am wondering if I haven't cut out too much. Could you take a quick look at it?
This article look just fine now, excellent text removal on your side i would say! I avoided removing everything that seemed promotional as that would most likely have caused some valid information to be removed, but it seems you merged all the relevant sections into one nice article. Excirial (Talk,Contribs)12:16, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
But there are actually advantages of the two choices, although logging in is supreme (with lots of benefits) than otherwise. And I respect his'. (Oh, sure, you're welcome.) --Efe (talk) 12:42, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
It says "You may remove this message if you improve the article or otherwise object to its deletion for any reason." but Hut 8,5 syas I can't take it off horror movies. Why doesn't wiki want horror movies anymore? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ministry of Love (talk • contribs) 18:09, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
As Hut already explained there is a difference between contesting a single prod, and removing it of each and every single page of a genre. You are right that a prod can always be contested, but only if the contester provides a valid rationale explaining why the article should be kept. Note that simply because a prod MAY be removed, it doesn't mean that it SHOULD be removed. Contesting a prod alone is no warrant for inclusion, because if a user contests a prod, an article might be forwarded to WP:AFD any time if someone else believes it should be removed. In short: Only contest a prod if you can provide a reason compliant to wikipedia guidelines.
Technically taken you are in no way limit to the amount of prods you can oppose, as long as you can provide rationale for the oposal. However, note that repeated removal for the sake of removal alone falls under Disruption of wikipedia. For the matter the only reason a prod really exists is to prevent flooding WP:AFD with articles which removal could be called "casual work" (IE: Where a single admin can decide on compliance to the rules).
Now, as it is quite clear you are opposing an entire battery of horror related PROD's i decided to create a grouped AFD for all of them. In short all the articles listed there are threated as opposed prod's, which meants that its now up to the community to decide whether all of them should be included or removed from wikipedia. Excirial (Talk,Contribs)19:09, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
So if I keep trying to save horror movie articles you're going to kick me off the wiki? I gave a reason for keeping the article but you don't seem to like it. I just want people to have a chance to make the articles better! Hut 8.5 keeps telling me I have to get people to change the process and now you're threatening to ban me! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ministry of Love (talk • contribs) 19:26, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
My friend, i am in no way whatsoever threating to ban or kick you of Wikipedia. If that is the way you interpreted my reaction you have my apologies since my reaction apparently completely missed the point i was trying to make. What i was trying to explain is that even though the template technically allows you to remove it, this does NOT mean that there is not a limit to this. In order to remove a template a user must state a reason which gives an explanation why the article should not be removed. In this case an explanation is a reason that states why the reason stated in the PROD template is not valid. In short, its up to you to explain why a prod is not valid, which is most times done by indicating an articles compliance to WP:Notability.
Furthermore i have to say i am not very fond of edit summaries stating AuburnPilot said I could take this off when removing prod's. At this time several other editors expressed concerns about the current removal of prod tags, which means that there is a conflict between you and several editors. As of such you should not simply keep removing prod tags regardless of your opinion as this will only cause an edit war between you and the other editors. (People tend to see this as disrespecting their opinions.) As i have already pointed out i created a grouped AFD to discuss the matter of article inclusion i would like to request that the discussion takes place there there. Furthermore i would like to ask that you do not resume taking off PROD's while the AFD is still open. If you are afraid the prodded articles in question might be removed before the AFD is closed you can take of the prod tags, but you should also list them into the AFD so they can be included into the discussion. (Relevant AFD).
Also, as a notice, and not as a threat, keep WP:DISRUPT in mind. While i don't oppose that you want to save the articles in question, i do oppose the means used. Just state your point at the AFD and let people decide what to do with the articles. If the articles are good they will simply be kept. :) Excirial (Talk,Contribs)20:04, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Whatever the end result, stop re-adding the prod tags, Excirial. That is specifically not acceptable. No, Ministry of Love should not go through and remove a prod tag from every single horror film article, but edit warring over a prod tag doesn't help. - auburnpilottalk20:09, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Before making accusations, i suggest you actually check someones edits. Because if you did do so, you might actually have seen i have not re-added a single prod, but instead gone trough the tedious project of creating a mass AFD for this (And before that, 4 individual AFD), Something that i seem to have to do another few times he news few days as more and more articles seem to become related to this. And if i am honest it doesn't really help that i need to update the AFD because your ANI comments has been interpreted as permission to remove prod templates. Excirial (Talk,Contribs)20:19, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
You're right, and my apologies. I saw this edit, and for some reason believed there were others. I certainly did not tell Ministry of Love to continue removing the tags, but to go to AfD as you have done. I've tried to clarify that on the AN/I post where he stated I told him he had permission to continue, so hopefully the issue is resolved. Thanks for taking the extra step and creating the AfD, rather than blindly reverting the tag. Best, - auburnpilottalk20:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
By that time i already notified you that you should not remove those prod tags because several editors disagreed, so yes, i took the nonprocedural liberty of a one click revert instead of going trough the entire AFD proces again. Excirial (Talk,Contribs)20:54, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Outdent
I'm not fond of people threatening to ban me from websites that I'm trying to contribute to. AuburnPilot said I was allowed to take it off so I did. What am I disrupting?
Excirial did not threaten to ban you (he explicitly said it's not a threat) and he's not an admin so he can't ban you even if he wanted to. The fact that someone else doesn't agree with me does not mean that I have to apologise to you - my opinion of your actions has not changed. Hut 8.520:23, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
You are of course free to disagree with both me and hud 8.5 about this issue. However, apologies are given when someone thinks they are needed, and they are never demanded. As of current there is no need for an apology from either of us. Personally i went trough the tedious work of creating an AFD where you could easily voice your opinion about this, and as of current i see no comment from you over there. Hut 8.5 at the same time spend time trying to explain what you weren't doing the way you should do it. He could have easily spend that time just slapping AFD templates on the pages in question which would be exactly according to procedure. We both tried to help you and explain our points, but apparently you just keep thinking im out to ban you, and HuD is out to bother you. Excirial (Talk,Contribs)20:47, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Do you expect me to thank you for creating an AFD??? I don't want the articles to be deleted, remember? You decied to do that on your own without even looking closely at the articles. There is no reason you couldn't have just let the articles stay. Where does it say that if someone edits out the prod notice that it has to go to an AFD?? That's not how it works. And if you're not threatening me why do you keep implying I'm being disruptive???? miniluv (talk)
Another Outdent
(Placed on respective users talk page after yet another uncivil reaction at WP:AFD) Notice: This warning is also based on this
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Excirial (Talk,Contribs)21:00, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
I have tried several times to have a polite discussion with you regarding the AFD of the for mentioned horror movie related articles. Each and every time it just ends in an uncivil response from your side no matter who is trying to help you. It is a rule to assume Good faith when discussing with other editors, and also to remain civil when discussing. However, your edit over here along with the previous discussions you had with both me and HuT show that you apparently only seek confrontation with other people.
If you still think that i am completely unfair/unreasonable towards you and still think that all i am trying to do is threating to ban you, you can raise an issue at WP:WQA or WP:RFC. Explanation about how to raise issues can be found at the respective pages. Excirial (Talk,Contribs)21:00, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Several of us have recommended speedy closure of your AFD due to improper use of the bulk nomination process. You can't nominate a group of unconnected motion pictures because it creates a real mess. I recommend you request closure of the current AFD and renominate each one separately. I know it's a lot of work, but every motion picture has different issues when it comes to establishing notability. Cheers. 23skidoo (talk) 02:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for the information you two. Normally i never need to nominate articles in a group wise fashion though i have seen it happen before. I fully agree that the only connection between these articles is that they were all contested by one and the same user. The nomination of all of those together was more to keep things organized by allowing one place to discuss all of them; But i agree that the group AFD makes it rather hard to comment on them as the issues with the articles is not the same.
It seems the articles have already been nominated for AFD separately so i closed this AFD as a procedural keep. But seeing this entire situation i think the PROD template needs a haul over; Either removal of it should be limited to valid reasons, or we should just stick with AFD templates. Watching each and every page to see if a prod remains in place is simply not a time saver. Excirial (Talk,Contribs)05:50, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks you for nominating the rest of those articles for individual AFD's as it made the procedural keep of the group AFD a lot shorter :). Also, my apologies for the comment i made yesterday; It was quite snappy and i won't fool either of us by saying that originally that wasn't the purpose. Back then i was starting to get tired trying to reason with Ministry of Love, but then again, that should have been no reason to snap at you. Again, my mistake! Excirial (Talk,Contribs)05:57, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
From WP:ANIThis is why PROD is a worthless waste of time, and everyone should just take the extra 30 seconds to make a proper AfD report. PROD is just a way of giving an article an extra few days on Wikipedia before the author removes the tag and it ends up having to go through AfD anyway. No admin action needed here.
Coulnd't agree more with this, and i suggest we prod the prod template some day. To bad so many users over at WP:AFD deem placing an AFD template on a page that isn't CSD-able b(ut doesn't stand a real chance on an AFD ) a crime against editing time. Funnt how prod templates tend to cause so much extra work since you have to keep an eye on them if they are not removed. Not even mentioning the issue that placing a PROD at the articles creation time is apparently polite while an AFD template is WP:Bite/WP:AGF. A well, enough about this. Now where can i request a policy change on those things? ;) Excirial (Talk,Contribs)20:12, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
I tried PROD out for about a week back when it was first proposed, and it only took people about half that time to figure out how to take advantage of it. It's been pointless since day 3 or 4, but somehow managed to become policy in spite of itself. KafzielComplaint Department20:36, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
About that. If you put a prod tag on an article, you must have thought of some reason for doing it. The only difference between PROD and AFD is clicking on "preloaded debate" and typing that reason up. That should take about 30 seconds, since you already know what to write because you did your homework before you placed the tag, just as you should with PROD. So once that's done, presto! You've just started a useful discussion instead of giving people a way to game the system for five days. KafzielComplaint Department20:36, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
? In my experience, it takes 5-10 minutes to go through the whole hassle-laden process of an AfD. I'm told it might go faster if I had Twinkle, but that's not practical.--Orange Mike | Talk21:08, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, in total it might take that long or longer... but in reality, so does a PROD. A PROD tag shouldn't be placed on an article unless due diligence is done first—determining what guidelines/policies it fails to meet, checking for reliable sources, that sort of thing—so the only difference is typing the AfD and transcluding it. Assuming you know your reasoning for wanting it deleted (and assuming you're not a hunt-and-peck typist) it certainly doesn't need to take more than a minute at most. Of course, some AfD statements are more elaborate than others, but they don't need to be. Even a one-sentence "fails WP:BIO" nom is better than a PROD tag.
For instance, in the current ANI case, all you'd need to do is place the afd tag (same amount of time as placing a prod tag), click the preloaded debate button that's right there in the tag, and on the next page just type "Fails WP:MOVIE" as your reason. And that's it. Someone will come along and change the category to "M", other people can debate (or not) as they please. 30 seconds and your obligation is complete. KafzielComplaint Department21:38, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
PRODs *do* work for unattended articles. Oftentimes the article creator is long gone, or only comes by every few weeks, so these PRODs often succeed. This is certainly less work for the rest of us than AfD. A PROD doesn't have to be relisted if no-one comments, unlike an AfD. EdJohnston (talk) 21:44, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
An AfD doesn't have to be relisted, either. It's become customary, but the policy doesn't require it. The nominator's statement can be enough to close an AfD. If nobody has an argument to the contrary (just like prod) then I'm fine with closing as delete. Plus, a decision made at AfD is a more binding precedent; speedy deletions and PRODs can be overturned on a whim, whereas an article recreated after an afd can be deleted on sight. Finally, starting an AfD means you don't even need to watch the article anymore, because removing an AfD tag will be reverted as vandalism. There's simply no down side to it. KafzielComplaint Department21:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't think you understand the point of PROD. It's to take care of uncontested, uncontroversial deletions that nevertheless don't fit into a CSD. There isn't any criteria to apply a PROD tag and similarly, there's no criteria for removing one. I've found that they can be quite effective. -Chunky Rice (talk) 12:58, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
RE: Freakin hell
Yeah, it's not the best way to spend your time. Thanks for your help anyway. I'll go through the movie articles andAFD them individually when I've got time (I'd like to check they're not notable first). Hut 8.506:35, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
I was super-pleased to see your comments at User_talk:Cr3 about my first article - what a great way to welcome me to Wikipedia. Thank you!
One of the points you made was that I had correctly made the article NPOV, but User:Skysmith seems to disagree, and has left a tag as such.
Would it be for the best if I rewrite portions of the article? Being new, I don't really know what to do when two major Wikipedians disagree.
Thank you for all your help! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cr3 (talk • contribs) 11:32, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
I read over the text several times and i indeed found some parts that may be called advertising under the closest scope of the rule. To be completely honest i would say the amount of "Possible advertising" is so small i don't support the decision to tag, but if you want to correct them i will be happy to give you some pointers. Note that i have been extremely stringent on compiling the list; The article is much better then most of the new company related articles, and only very little (2-3% tops) of those new articles have no sign of advertising whatsoever. Actually, quite a few long round articles are still quite advertising.
The list
An in-house promotional viral which gained the fledging company its first viral success
One of The Viral Factory’s first major corporate successes for a client was a campaign for the United States brand Trojan Condoms U.K / European launch
This in turn led to an increase in global blue chip clients and further viral success with brands such as Microsoft, Ford and Coca-Cola.
Ford ‘Ka’ — Due to the subject matter (animals supposedly dying at the hands of the product) and the way in which the viral was leaked to the public, this campaign proved a major accidental success for the client.
I think the tagger fell over the first three close succession lines when he was examining the article. Technically taken the word success is an opinion, and not a fact. If i would tell you that i am a successful self made businessman (Not true for the matter) a common reaction would be "Show-off". If i left the word successful out it would be no more then a statement about my profession.
There are two ways to solve this: The first one is simply leaving the word out altogether. The second option is to create a construction such as this one from the Primavera Systems article: "Primavera has been called one of the technology leaders in the Project Portfolio Management market by a recent research document created by Forrester[4]". This can be summed up as: Subject + positive message + notable source + actual link to that source. Note that this is a tricky construction that should only be used in case its required in the article as its closely related to WP:Weasel, along with the difficulty to find good sources to quote. In the Primavera article this construction was necessarily to establish notability, but the occurrences in this article seem to serve no major purpose so you might want to just remove them.
An award winning animation created using the product to illustrate its functions.
Numerous industry awards including:
This is actually how a marketeer would promote an article, and this falls under WP:Weasel. While the statement is completely true, a subtone of it is promotional. See, in this case "Award winning" could be replaced with "excellent" without changing the message (In this case award winning is used as a promotion). Second "Numerous industry awards" also indicates greatness by stating how great and successful the product is; It could be read as "We will now tell you how wonderful our product is, but since its so great we will limit ourselves to :". Or, to quote the example of WP:Weasel: "The New York Yankees have won 26 World Series championships—about three times as many as any other team.". Of course its completely true, but it is promotional :)
I hope you can do something with this rather long comment. I hope you didn't mind the length, but i wanted to explain why some things might be interpreted as adverts, as opposed to simply pointing things out and quoting rules :). Wishing you a happy wiki time, and with kind regards, Excirial (Talk,Contribs)17:38, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Excirial - you are truly an excellent ambassador for Wikipedia - I couldn't have asked to stumble in to a kinder contributor in helping me set up my first article. I've made the changes suggested to The Viral Factory, and will continue to monitor and tweak it. Again, thank you so much for your help! Cr3 (talk) 09:49, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the compliment! Would it be a cliche to say that i wished that each and every new editor could write such quality, and also cared for improving their articles so much? Other then that, there was one small thing i wanted to talk to you about. Apart from a NPOV tag there was also an uncategorized tag inside the article. I already added categories and removed the tag, but i thought you might be interested on how to add categories.
A category is nothing more and less then a way to group articles about the same subject. Adding categories can be done in two ways: Either by manually looking them up in a rather messy list and then adding them to the article, or by adding them with an extension to wikipedia which allows you to search that list. To add an extension, one can add it to his or her monobook. This Monobook allows a user to add scripts to his or her account that alter the Wikipedia interface. There are a load of scripts available, and they are generally quite handy when editing. For categorizing categorizing the HotCat script is pretty handy. Here is a small tutorial on how to add a script (In this specific example, hotcat):
Edit the page and add: importScript('User:TheDJ/Gadget-HotCat.js'), then save the page;
On either internet explorer or firefox press CTRL + F5 (Pressing F5 is a page refresh, and when used in combination with control it will reload the page iinstead of getting it from the cache)
Now when you view an article, there will be a bar called categories under it which lists all the articles. There will now be + and - signs next to the categories. Clicking these allows for easy editing, removing and changing of categories. (Last line copied from the user manual at WP:HOTCAT
As you may notice, I've asked Ministry of Love to disengage from this conflict on his talk page, and I suggest that you do the same. I don't see this line of discussion going anywhere productive. I think that someone who he doesn't feel directly in conflict with may have an easier time explaining Wikipedia policies and guidelines. -Chunky Rice (talk) 22:08, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for that rice. I think that it is indeed better that someone else takes over this, as i assume Mililuv's opinions about me are set in stone by now. And in all honesty i cannot blame him for that; while i have the feeling i'm only trying to help by explaining whats wrong (and at the same time following the prod policy) it could easily be misconceived for trying to point out errors while trying to delete the previously prodded articles no matter what. Its likewise the other way around: By now i already outed that my opinion about incivility and seeking confrontation, but that is at the same time just an opinion which can just as well be untrue. I guess there is to much prejudice on both sides by now to allow for a friendly discussion.
For the matter i left a note at User talk:Barton Foley, the editor who originally placed the prods asking him if he would want to look into the matter of tagging the articles if necessarily. As said before i would normally just check them for notability myself, but at this time i think that any new AFD (No matter if its correct) from me on one these articles would (Rightfully) fall under WP:COI or Harassment. I don't feel i have a special bias against these articles, but seeing the situation as is, its better for me to disengage from both the discussion and involvement with these articles as a whole. Excirial (Talk,Contribs)06:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, thats the second time in two days that this kind of nonsense happened. I wonder if it is a bug as this was not the diff i was looking at. It somehow seems that huggle doesn't like it if someone edits after it displays the diff and therefore reverts both. Excirial (Talk,Contribs)13:50, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
I AfD'ed 13th Child but I think I may have confused myself as to procedure, given the AfD discussion page loaded the archived procedural keep discussion of the article. The instructions on the review page seemed to be unhelpful. If I mis-edited, many apologies. Barton Foley (talk) 15:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Fixed now. The trick with earlier nominated articles is replacing "page=13th Child" with "page=13th Child (2nd nomination)" so that it is clear to both the Mediawiki software and the people that there has been a previous nomination :). I updated the WP:AFD page so that it will correctly display the article. I also see that you removed the nomination from the 13th Child article. I already updated it, so you can just navigate back to my revision and copy the AFD over from there and then continue with the procedure. Excirial (Talk,Contribs)15:24, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
"Sigh" I screwwed it up as you were fixing, I was blissfully trying to do the same. So. I am stopping and can you revert it back your intial fixes? So sorry....*facepalm*Barton Foley (talk) 15:35, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
No worries, give me a minute to get it back up. And to be honest second nominations are rather complex to create, especially when two people work at it at the same time. Since i only did half the procedure (step 1 and 3) its not exactly strange that this went bad because i should have told you what i was doing. Excirial (Talk,Contribs)15:39, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up. I looked at Ministry of Love's talk with Barton Foley and it looks okay to me. Maybe more question marks that I would have used, but overall the questions seem reasonable. I think he's just trying to figure out how things work. As to that he thinks that you tried to bully him... well, I don't think I'm going to be able to change his opinion on that any time soon. But I think that he's willing to leave it in the past. Let me know if that changes. His response on the AfD seems reasonable. The TMC link is, as Foley notes, not useful for notability, but the reviews may be. -Chunky Rice (talk) 18:23, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Your welcome. I cannot blame him for his opinion really; his start here on Wikipedia has not exactly been the kind that can be called a warm welcome, nor one that i am exactly proud to be involved in. I do hope he will figure out how things work soon; Not for myself or the rest of the community (We have all been new once), but more for himself. To him it probably looks like everyone is throwing a wagon load of rules that we don't follow ourselves. He seems to understand part of a lot of rules by now, but not in such depth that he understands them corrently. (PROD replacing for example). Excirial (Talk,Contribs)18:39, 18 September 2008 (UTC)== Good job on 13th Child. (And an explanation of what happened around it) ==
I technically promised not to get involved into more conflict about the 13th Child article, but i hope you will share the opinion that the word conflict doesn't mean the same as praise or explanation :). Seeing the references you added to the article, there is no way it should be removed as sources added clearly indicate it meets the notability guideline. Again, compliments of finding such quality sources and lifting the article to a state where its certain of being kept!
Second, i see you still think i am trying to bully you. I can't really blame you for that as your start at Wikipedia hasn't exactly been a warm welcome, nor one i am proud to say i have been part of. However, i hope that a little explanation from me about my motivations and what happened in this entire issue will clear a bit of the clouded sky. I still believe this entire issue is nothing more then a big misunderstanding on both sides. Sorry if i mess up the chronology a little bit, but as a lot happened at the same time it is kind of hard to keep track of.==== The start of it all ====
Initially my involvement started a little time after Hut was discussing with you about the removed PROD tags. Just like him i noticed an unusually large number of removals from a single user, so went in to have a look. It seemed like Hut thought the large removal to be disruption, mostly likely due to the amount of tags being removed and the speed of them being removed (Its rather unusual something like that happens). He decided to re-add the prod tags to the article. However, no matter the reason, a prod tag that was contested should not be re-added to the article unless clear malicious intent or accidental removal is the case. By the time i arrived the discussion already showed that there was no clear malicious intent or accidental removal, but also showed that Hut still stood by his decision to re-tag the articles. By doing that he implicitly disagreed with the removal of the prods; However when someone disagrees with the removal of a prod, procedure states the article should be forwarded to WP:AFD, instead of placing the prod back on. So this is where i came in. I created the AFD's for a few of the articles he opposed. (For me it was just to follow a procedure which had not been followed the way it should have been).
After that we had a long discussion around the entire Wikipedia: On my talk page, on your talk page, on the articles talk pages, on huts talk page and who knows where else it has taken place. Mostly this discussion focused on the matter of mass removing prod tags from the articles. It seems that my mention of disruption shook you up quite a bit. However that mention was not a veiled threat to ban or silence you; it was meant as a caution as hut already mentioned the word before. See, while it is not forbidden to remove a prod of any article, doing so on a lot of articles in a fast way makes people question the intent of doing so. Just compare it to this: If i would add prod tags to a load of horror related articles you would very likely think that this was a way to take revenge. While both interpretations of those actions might just as well be wrong, its just what people tend to think. Also note that back then i still was not sure if you were being a good editor simply trying to save the articles, or a bad one just trying to disrupt (By now i know its the former).
ANI and the "attack" warning together with a bit of Rice
The next stop was ANI (I believe?). And again, the topic was the PROD tags. I guess that ANI really confused you due to the slightly different interpretations of the prod tags posted over there. See, (I cannot really talk for Hut, but i can guess) Hut and my side in this discussion was that while is is not technically wrong to remove any number of prod tags from any number of article, doing so with a lot of tags in a fast sequence is not exactly the meaning of it. Auburnpilot claimed about the same thing, but did not include or share our interpretation that in this case there was any intent for disruption. Your question about his subsequent comment about not re-adding or removing the prod tags again was also not answered, so allow me: Once someone removes a prod tag tag from an article there is no need or rule to send that article to AFD. However if someone does not agree with the removal of the tag then the prod should not be re-added, but the article should be taken to AFD instead.
After that i think i issued the "Attack" warning. I never really explained the why though. At that time several of your comments in a row accused me of trying to ban or silence you, even though i had (in my eyes) clearly explained that this was not the case . I ended up placing that warning as by now i started to find the constant accusations to be uncivil. At that time rice came in and asked the both of us to back down from the discussion. Good call from him really, as by now the discussion was going nowhere, and i guess the both of us has a little to much prejudice about each others actions to really discuss anything :).
And last: Baron and the current AFD
And last we have the current AFD and the sudden involvement of someone called Baron Foley. I remember seeing a comment where you thought that Baron is someone who i asked to get involved and remove the article. However, Baron is the person that placed the PROD you initially removed before either hut or myself got involved. I decided to inform him about the entire situation as he was the first person to assume that the articles were not notable, so he would likely be the best person to determine what to do by now. When he subsequently decided to nominate 13th child he ran into the problem that the article has been nominated before. Nomination an article for AFD which has been nominated before is more complex then a first nomination, and is not really well documented. So he decided to ask a question on how to do this; But when it did not work as expected i ended up helping him out with the technicalities. Note that the decision to AFD is (As far as i know) not influenced by me.
And as for now, your addition of sources made clear that the 13th child is simply notable and should be kept on Wikipedia. Also (And this time you didnt ask for them :) ) i wanted to offer you my apologies for not being able to stop this entire issue from escalating so far. While i still believe that the mass removal of PROD's wasn't that great a idea, that was simply a misunderstanding anyone can make. However as i have been around quite a bit longer i should have been able to resolve this issue without having a share in letting it escalate so far. At the very least a bit more assumption of Good Faith from my side could have made all the difference. So again, apologies for what happened. With kind regards, and wishing you a more pleasant time then this rather negative start from now on, Excirial (Talk,Contribs)09:27, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm not going to argue with you but what you say is not an accurate representation of your actions or my actions. I am not confused. I did not misunderstand anything. I did nothing wrong. No matter how many times you claim it does, Wikipedia:Proposed Deletion doesn't say contested prods have to go to AFD. Please leave me alone!!!miniluv (talk) 11:43, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Please Help
I am currently working on an article which you deleted within seconds of my posting it yesterday. I am hoping you can provide me with some insight with which I can rewrite my article to conform with your guidelines.
I put a lot of time into researching the subject and including the references in my article to give it legitimacy, yet when I posted the article, the links to the references appeared in within the article, yet there the notes section at the bottom was missing????
Also, I was not quite ready yet to post the article. There were links and other info I wanted to add but the time I had to work on it had expired and I couldn't seem to find any other way to save my work to continue with another day!
Finally, when I initally begun writing the article I was notified that others had tried to do the same before me and the articles were deleted. Does this automatically make my article more likely to be deleted?
Thanks for your help and I look forward to your response. (User:Enop781)
Hi Enop!
As i have no copy of the article in question, i can only give you a few non-specific pointers why it was removed. It seems have have been removed under the G11 CSD guideline, which meant the article was either spammy, or promotional. Under the WP:SPAM/WP:NPOV and the WP:NOTADVERTISING articles may not be written with the sole intent to promote the articles or companies they contain information about. Also, the WP:CORP guidelines state that any article about a company must be notable enough to have its own page.
As for the article being removed before: This does not per se make the article prone to removal (Not or a g11 article at least). However, it IS an indication that the subject of the article might not be notable, since it has been deleted multiple times. I am sorry i cannot be more specific on this matter. I have no way of retrieving the removed article, which means i cannot see what guideline it exactly violated on what point Excirial (Talk,Contribs)18:54, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
National Alliance for Hispanic Health deletion
Hello Excirial, I'm curious about an article that you had a hand in deleting about a month ago, called National Alliance for Hispanic Health. According to the warnings, it sounds like the article was written using advertising language, and that it wasn't the first time it had been created/deleted. I heard about the issue from someone I know who works with them, who asked if I could look into it. I've done some basic research and it stands to reason that the group should pass WP:NOTE, and that a neutral, reliably sourced article would stand. I'd like to give a try at writing it. Looking at the deletion review policy, it seems I might be able to recreate it without issue, but because it was created and deleted more than once, I'd like to be sure it's not blocked or otherwise flagged. Let me know when you get a chance. (Also, I'm going to pose this same question to the editor who deleted the page in May). Thanks. WWB (talk) 16:00, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Your indeed right that an article that has previously been deleted can be recreated without a problem, unless the page in question is Salted. In this case no salt has been applied to the article, as i can only find record of one removal. However once an article is (re)created it will again be checked if it meets the guidelines. If no problem is found then it can stay just like any other article. But if violates any removal based policies it can be tagged for WP:CSD, WP:AFD or WP:PROD at any time. In short: Feel free to recreate, but make sure its not advertising like last time :) Excirial (Talk,Contribs)10:31, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks very much for the note. I've got my research together, so later tonight I will try creating a new, guideline-appropriate entry. Cheers, WWB (talk) 14:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
My, your quite the watchful bee, aren't you? :). The reasoning is now posted on the talk page; At the time you gave me this nudge asking where the commentary was, i was still in the process of writing it. Excirial (Talk,Contribs)10:26, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
In attempting to revert Nilovongsta's vandalism by removing content, you inadvertently removed some of the content in this edit [2] after I had added it back. It appears you reverted my reversion of the vandalism. I've fixed it, but I wanted to let you know about it. Thanks! --Mysdaaotalk20:20, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for notifying me about this. Unfortunately i don't have a ready answer to explain what went wrong here; It seems Huggle decided to revert the revisions of both you and our vandal to a revision of the vandal? Perhaps this is caused because we reverted at almost the same time, or maybe this is some new feature that allows a rollback to a revision from a non warned user? If that is the case then it needs some serious work as that rollback was pretty useless. Well, my apologies for the extra work caused :) Excirial (Talk,Contribs)20:27, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Spell checking
Hi, this is a wiki and so I hope so I hope don't mind my tweak to your user page. But can I suggest that if you are looking for a different role in Wikipedia you consider installing a spell checker, and maybe do a bit of spell checking? I've just run a search for "planing" and I reckon at least a third of them are typos - fertile territory! ϢereSpielChequers22:17, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
I re-removed the Arlis Perry subsection from Stanford Memorial Church, and i will explain why i did. First off you are entirely right that there should be a reference in both david berkowitz and dr bruce perry, as these two persons are directly related with her and the murder. However the Stanford Memorial Church is at best a very weak link to the subject of the article (Is it absolutely critical for the article where it happened? I think not). Such links - let alone complete sections - are therefore never included, as they should simply be discussed into the main article about the subject, in this case the Arlis Perry article . Take for example famous criminal Jack the Ripper. His article contains a link to London as that is where he operated, but the London article does not contain a link back to Jack the Ripper and nor should it. Excirial (Talk,Contribs)20:13, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Jack the Ripper happened in Whitechapel. I bet ya there is something in the whitechapel article that mentions it. I believe the murder is a significant piece of the history of the church. it is definitly more important than what kind of organs they have. you might not think that the satanic ritual murder of a woman on the floor of a church is that important, but i think that if someone wants info on the church, they are going to find the info on Arlis Perry more interseting than the type of organs the church uses. Also London is one of the largest and most important cities in the world. You aren't going to have every murder that happened be on the London page. Stanford Memorial Church is a large church on a major college campus. Theres only been one murder in the church, it should be on the page...
Good call! However there is a small difference between those two articles: The Whitechapel includes a single line mentioning the murders, not an entire paragraph . Of course the murder is significant in the church history, but keep in mind that the article is about the Stanford Memorial Church, not the murder. Personally i would suggest cutting down the section to a one line mention as in the white chapel article; And keep the rest of the information in the Arlis Perry article.
Just see it like this: If someone wants to read more about the murder they will simply navigate to the article, where a full explanation can be found. But keeping an entire section in would be the same as adding a section about marriage into the article: While it is related (Church <-> Margiage) i think you will agree with me that simply linking wedding is enough, as opposed to adding a summary of what a wedding is. Excirial (Talk,Contribs)21:14, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
I got in a muddle creating it and was just starting again when I found you had thoughtfully moved it for me. I should have thought of that myself. Thanks! JohnCD (talk) 20:33, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
My new page script somehow managed to filter your talk page as a new article being created in the article space. I am not really sure what triggered this: The page is by no means new, and the page i tagged was apparently in the right spot. Did you try to archive the page by any chance, or did you do anything that might have created a new page? (Which was then subsequently removed as the page was removed from the list, something that happens when pages have been deleted)
I am not sure, all I know is that my page was vandalized by a user and after I reverted it your edit came came along. Probably it was when I was reverting vandalism or the vandal created a page or something, feel free to look on my contributions to check if there is something that might of triggered it or the vandal's contributions Antonio Lopez(desu)21:21, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Well, it disappeared from Special:Newpages and my own newpage list, so either it was a mistake in the script, or the page has already been removed. In either case, there is no way i can verify what it was. A well, if you didn't archive anything then i am pretty sure nothing worth keeping was lost (At most a redundant copy of your talk page) :) Excirial (Talk,Contribs)21:23, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Are you certain Rider33 is the same person as Adam Craig? While his user page indicates that is of course possible, more then one user ends up using their userpage as a sandbox (Mostly wondering because he also created Sean Daley (Professional Mountain Biker). Apart from that, even if he is Adam i doubt that any prod or AFD tag is needed on this article. While WP:AUTOBIO states that Creating an article about yourself is strongly discouraged., it is not outright forbidden. The article itself does not seem to suffer from the standard COI issues. All information in it is WP:NPOV, and i could verify everything written with links from around the Internet. Thus in short: Its ok for a self written article.
Hello again, Excirial ... I came back and read your User page ... as you can see, I don't want to be an admin, and as an independent observer, I have to say that maybe you just want it Too Much, and there's this axiom about those who want it most being the least deserving of it.
I didn't want to offend, but I had to correct the "to/too" snafu on User:Excirial/Content (edit | [[Talk:User:Excirial/Content|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ... I thought at first that it was a joke ... but I resisted the temptation to replace "i" with upper case "I", which is another noticeable mistake, because it means that your were in Too Much of a hurry, and didn't review your edit.
Remember ... Show preview is our friend, as is a good spell-checker ... I use Mozilla FireFox, but I believe the IE also has an integrated checker that underlines misspelled words in red ... that's your other friend.
Take note, Grasshopper ... you don't get a second chance to make a first impression, so you can't have "sloppy" posts ... if you don't notice a mistake until after you've saved it, go back and fix it immediately, even if it does muck-up your edit count.
BTW, what's the name of the template that calculates your Wikepedia editing experience? I use {{User:Tcrow777/templates/wiki user since|April 8, 2006 (UTC)}} ... I'd like to use one that says, "This user has been on Wikipedia for
M months, and D days." :-)
My, you sure raised a lot of issues in a single post... Lets see, where shall i start?
Spelling I think I'll start with that. Even though this is the english Wikipedia, keep in mind that not everyone (Me included) is a native English speaker. While a spell checker can catch incorrect spelling, it cannot catch bad grammar. For example: in my own language to/too translates into completely different words. Likewise thats/that's is a funny issue. My own language barely uses any ' in words. Don't worry, ill figure out the entire language in time :)
Adminship This is actually a funny one. I presume you tripped over the "I am also planning to issue a new RFA some months from now." part? I have said it in the past and i will say it again now: Adminship is not a specific goal or target for me. Hence, that RFA came completely out of the blue to be honest, as an editor offered to co-nom me. The reason i actually want(ed) to issue a new RFA was simply to see if the problems raised in the previous one were void now. The main issue ended up being me switching vandalism patrol tools. Lets just say that back then the new tool was a bit to much of a challenge to handle it the way i should have.
Templates Here you go: {{User Wikipedian For|year=2007|month=10|day=05}}. I would have filled in the data for you if it was possible, but since you state you are a former wikipedian now contributing on IP level, i think the first IP edit is not exactly an accurate representation.
Feedback From a short glance, flagged articles could solve a problem i keep running into. However before i give a feedback, i want to go over it in more detail then i can do in the, say, 10 minutes i have left before i need to get to work. I will get back to you as soon as i find enough time to give a good response (This weekend at latest i would say).
English as a second languages (which I suspected) explains a lot ... "to" is a preposition implying "toward", while "too" is both a synonym for "also" and for "too much" as in "too much salt" (it's one of those "exceptional" things in English), and a common mistake that most native speakers learn to distinguish by the sixth grade, hence the mistake in my original assumption that you had not reviewed your post, or were perhaps slightly illiterate ... in English (both American and British), the first-person pronoun "I" is always captitalized, not just when it is the first word in a sentence, like "ich" in German.
You should self-identify English as a second language on your User page ... that way, people will overlook the "i" problem instead of questioning your proficiency in the language (I saw a template for it on Some Other Editor's user page) ... this should also be offered for consideration if you do another RFA ... BTW, I forgot that people do not self-nominate, so that cuts out a lot who are too inexperienced to be qualified.
Thnx fer the template name ... it works Just Fine on my IP User page. :-)
I ran trough the flagged idea documentation, but i have a hard time figuring that the true purpose of the template is. Even though i read the documentation multiple times, i still feel that there might be multiple explanations:
The flagged template is used alongside with CSD or PROD to give a more verbose explanation of why the article is deleted. (IE: Rewording the current warning in a more friendly way)
The flagged template is a subcategory for the deletion process that allows users to flag an article similar to PROD, but without explicitly stating deletion. (IE: A long time prod)
The flagged template is a special category which lists article's that are in the twilight zone between Removal and being a good article, and need some second editor judgement on their quality.
Something else.
Any chance you can enlighten me on this? While i already wrote some suggestions i am not sure if all of those are really applicable dending on the number you choose from the above possibilities (What will he take, ladies and gentleman?). Oh and by the way, your flagged templates seriously give good karma i think. I somehow got divine inspiration for an article removal template that is a merger between a long term prod, the maintenance tags and AFD deletion sorting including the involvement of the wiki projects (Quite likely it won't work though ^^). Excirial (Talk,Contribs)13:53, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
OK, when you first encounter an article, and you're not sure if it's Too Soon to flag it for deletion, or you think that it might be WP:N with a little more work, then you FLAG it with {{Flag-article}} ... if it does improve over the next few weeks, then you go back and remove the Category:Flagged articles tag from the earlier message (to remove it from the list), otherwise it got deleted and is no longer in the category ... look at my edit history, and you can see flags I've placed on editor's pages ({{Flag-editor}}), but flags on deleted articles' Talk pages have evaporated ... I guess that means that #3 would be my answer. — 72.75.98.105 (talk) 17:22, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
A bit like a slow version of PROD mixed with regular maintenance tags then? I like the idea. Much less invasive and a lot less time-restrictive then a PROD. If this idea will work as well as i think it will, this template will replace the majority of my new page prod tags. Its just what i needed: A category between regular maintenance tags and prod tags.
I got a few suggestions for it:
As of current there are only about a hundred pages in the category. However if more people start using this flag, this number will probably end up with several extra digits (Especially since the articles in this category have no set removal date). Therefore i would suggest using a dated template so that flags can be sorted by date. If articles are flagged a reasonable amount of time (Say, a month or two tops) another editor can jump and remove the flag/article in if the original tagger is not watching it anymore.
It may be a good idea to contact the devs of Twinkle, Friendly, NPWatcher and Huggle and ask them if they could include the templates into their software. As semi-automated patrol is virtually the only form of patrol little people would add these templates if they are not included into any of the available tools. Aside from that, its a good way to get people acquainted with the templates.
A problem might be that people would remove the flag templates, thus removing the category as well. While this is less likely due to the templates being placed upon the article user pages, it could still happen. Added problem is that these templates are meant to stay around a rather long time, which increases the chance of them being removed by users. In short: What would prevent people from simply removing the template as if it were a PROD template? Its annoying to track PRODed articles, but tracking two months worth of flagged articles is even harder.
While i don't know if this is technically possible or allowed by category policies would it be an idea to include a "Tagger" parameter that creates a subcat for the user who tagged it? Think of it as stub sorting where most stubs have a sub category. This way people could easily monitor the tags they placed themselves. I know, wild idea. But maybe a useful one.
Another wild suggestion: since its a long time prod, how about including some form of sorting such as the deletion sorting at AFD? As all the articles in this cat are questionable good ones. So it may be an idea to categorize them for individuals and wikiprojects so they can pick them up for improvement.
The documentation needs a little extra cleanup for added clarity. Though it seems that most of the problems i had with it are already handled :)
There have been just over 100 entries in Category:Flagged articles for several months now, and it appears that additions are matching deletions at about the same rate ... I've yet to encounter an editor removing that CAT from an article's Talk page to "hide" it. :-)
I guess I'm Old School in that I don't use tools for patrolling ... it's manual and slow, but that's part of how I manage my dysfunction ... see {{Oldprodfull}} for a template that tags previous (or currently active) PRODs, — 72.75.98.105 (talk) 18:48, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
