This is an archive of past discussions with User:Marcusmax. 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.
I saw your excellent work on the above AfD, and thought you may have an interest in this organization. Ikip (talk) 16:58, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Moved from User talk ikip:
Yes it does interest me I will join, and even if I only rescue an article once and a while, it is better then just letting it get deleted. Thanks for the invite -Marcusmax(speak) 17:01, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Your welcome, I only learned about this group a year ago, I wish I would have known about it years before that, they are so helpful and effective in sourcing at risk articles. Ikip (talk) 17:06, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Category Articles tagged for deletion and rescue not found
Hi, Marcusmax, welcome to the Article Rescue Squadron!
We are a growing community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to identifying and rescuing articles that have been tagged for deletion. Every day hundreds of articles are deleted, many rightfully so. But many concern notable subjects and are poorly written, ergo fixable and should not be deleted. We try to help these articles quickly improve and address the concerns of why they are proposed for deletion. This covers a lot of ground and your help is appreciated!
Some points that may be helpful:
Our main aim is to help improve articles, so if someone seeks help, please try to assist if you are able. Likewise feel free to ask for help, advice and clarification.
Many times we are asked to help rescue articles by people new to our notability and sourcing policies. If the article is not fixable we can help explain why and offer alternatives. Many of these editors are also new to Wikipedia so may see deleting "their" article as "bitey". Encourage civility and maybe even {{welcome}} them if they have only been templated with deletion messages.
The Articles for deletion (AfD) discussion is where the concerns regarding each article are brought up and addressed. To be an effective member of the project you need to know how AfD works as well as how to improve articles. Introduction to deletion process gives a good overview and some good advice for newcomers to deletion.
Our primary work is improving articles tagged for rescue. On this template you can see a drop-down list of current articles tagged. You can install it on your own page by putting {{ARS/Tagged}}. A more dynamic list with article links and description is on our current articles page. It is highly recommended you watchlist it.
If you have another language besides English, please consider adding yourself to the list of translators available. Articles and sources that use non-English languages often need translation for those of us who cannot translate for ourselves.
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Australia–Uruguay relations
There are a handful of accounts that believe bilateral relations are inherently non-notable, and can never be notable, or at least represent themselves this way. There probably is not much that can be done about it, except maybe in truly egregious cases. Take it as a given that three or four will vote delete, regardless. Emphasise in the discussion that WP:N is the usual inclusion standard, that the article meets the standard, and that nobody has argued otherwise. The "inherently nonnotable" vote has no strenght of argument, just numbers. Don't lose any sleep over it. WilyD00:41, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Pardon me for butting in (just came by to thank Marcusmax for his hard work. WilyD, this is nonsense. I've looked at a whole bunch of these and no one--not a single editor--has ever argued that such relations are inherently non-notable. You, and others, seem to argue that they are inherently notable, and I don't think that's that true. The ones that do not satisfy WP:N do sometimes get deleted at AfD, just like any other article that does not meet the standard should. Of course an inherently non-notable vote has nothing to recommend it, and that's probably why I've never seen one in an AfD discussion, not on these relations articles and not anywhere else. Drmies (talk) 01:48, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
No offense, but this shows very little familiarity with the situation. I have taken a very consistant line that those articles which I can demonstrate meet the standards of WP:N should be kept, and not commented where I am not able to demonstrate this (in general, I do not think my inability to quickly show notability necessarily means that it does not exist, especially where both countries are not English-speaking). There are, however, editors who've argued that being the focus of four academic conferences (so the subject of ~100 academic journal articles), as well as a cornucopia of other sources from newspapers, magazines, et cetera, is still "non-notable". While "inherently nonnotable" may be a paraphrase, it accurately sums up the argument where the notability exceeds the usual inclusion standard by orders of magnitude and people are still arguing delete. So far as I have seen, only fairly borderline cases have closed as delete, and those that blow WP:N out of the water have been closed as "no consensus" and "keep", though that doesn't change the reality that some accounts are arguing "delete" based on a general "IDONTLIKEIT" of bilateral relations. WilyD14:57, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks
Marcusmax, I've said it at AfD, but let me repeat it here: thanks for your work on Australia–Uruguay relations, even if it should prove unsuccessful, and thanks also for your tact in that discussion. Wikipedia should count itself lucky to have editors like you. Drmies (talk) 01:48, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
I hear you. Go have a beer and take a nice nap! You've done enough. I saw that AfD, and I could "delete per nom" but that's a bit redundant after all your work there. Thanks for your note. Drmies (talk) 02:46, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
You probably are getting a bit tired of me annoying you over these x-y articles but the article Albania-Serbia relations is in need of some real help right now. I am shocked that this article is up for deletion, simply shocked and here is why. Albania and Serbia have had a negative relationship that dates back decades as is evident in articles such as Serbian-Albanian conflict, Kosovo War and both world wars. As I have shown on the articles afd there are many articles by top news organizations and hundred of others detailing relations of the two. So as I begin to try to re-write this article I really, really need some input on how I should go about writing such an extensive article. Thanks -Marcusmax(speak) 23:36, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
I keep getting error messages when I try to post. Keep letting me know when you need help. Again, the best way to get other editors to repair these articles is {{rescue}} and notifying the aplicable pages, including Kosovo WarSerbian-Albanian conflict of the Afd, but make sure to post a notice on the AfD that you did it. Ikip (talk) 23:44, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
It's pretty frustrating, because an article of this magnitude might very well take a few days to complete. And I am being pestered (in a very uncivil way) to make these changes very quickly. -Marcusmax(speak) 23:51, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
I posted a NPA warning on Bali's talk page. Bali has a history of comments like this in AfDs. I asked him to apologize on the AfD too. If he continues I will search 5 minutes of his edit history to show a pattern of comments like this, and gladly post a ANI, asking for civility probation, as he ironically supported for Dream Focus today, for comments which were tame by comparison. Watch as I begin sourcing this article and none of the sources are acceptable to Bali. Ikip (talk) 00:02, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Ikip -- please do what ever you need to do to demonstrate a pattern of something or other now. I eagerly await your decision to do so. I urge it in fact. Don't hold back on my account (if you're holding back because you're seeking to create the impression of a problem when there is, well, you know, not a problem, that's another issue).Bali ultimate (talk) 00:16, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
bali I have worked with you in the past and know you are a very passionate user, and I really do not think that we need an ANI on this. -Marcusmax(speak) 00:19, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
I tend to agree that such is unneccessary. But if Ikip feels otherwise (and his warnings, and hints, and so forth seem to imply that he does) I feel no need to head that off (would in fact enjoy it). My last comment on your talk page on this matter is this: I put no stock whatsoever in ettiquette lessons from someone with a block log like this [1] against a block log like mine [2]. I find behavioral advice from such a user absurd. I have not made a single personal attack in any of this. His attempt to position this otherwise is laughable. I won't respond here again; seek me out of if you feel any need to discuss this further with me.Bali ultimate (talk) 00:29, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Listen, if these articles get deleted, one can simply recreate them, no? That may be a lot less trouble than this frantic activity... Drmies (talk) 00:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
No, because often an editor who nominates an article for deletion watches the page, and when the page is recreted, will ask for the article to be speedy deleted. Also, once an article is deleted, you have to go through what is called a WP:DRV (deletion review) which is monitored by editors who delete, and the chances of the deletion being overturned is low. Ikip (talk) 00:29, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, I've been sideways involved with CSD #4, but always the question was asked whether this was simply a reinstatement of deleted material or a substantially improved rewritten article. That question, if the article is worthwhile, should be easy to answer. So I'm personally not afraid of speedies--one can always find a friendly administrator to look into the matter. Drmies (talk) 01:51, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Hey Marcus, I'd find it difficult to believe that those two countries would not have a meaningful relationship, given their proximity. I don't know much about formatting these kinds of articles, though; I think there are others who are better at it than I am. To prevent deletion, bad prose but really good references ought to be enough, I think. But I don't know what those sources are, and I can't read Russian or Serbo-Croatian. Listen, if an article gets deleted, one can always recreate it, with sources and all; they won't be salted, I would think. Groubani did no one a favor--here we are, all of us running around arguing for and against, trying to find sources to save some of them, it's crazy. But thanks for dropping me a line. Drmies (talk) 00:05, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
3. You can request a mentor to help you: Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User. But don't wait for a mentor to respond to you before responding on the article for deletion page.
4. When trying to delete a page, veteran editors love to use a lot of rule acronyms. These acronyms don't need to intimidate you. Here is a list of acronyms you can use yourself: Deletion debate acronyms, which will help you argue that the article should be kept.
This barnstar is awarded to Marcusmax. For staying cool in the most trying circumstances. Also for giving new articles, and therefore the new editors who created these articles, a chance of growing and thriving on wikipedia. You are a wonderful asset to wikipedia, and it has been an honor to work with you. Ikip (talk) 02:12, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Hey Marcusmax, I have little to offer regarding the format of these articles; it's something I struggled with myself in the Netherlands-Belarus article. We don't want a list of fact, but rather an organized whole. It may well be that there is no standardized format possible beyond "history" and "issues"--the lack of diplomacy between the Dutch and the Belarusians is an entirely different animal fromt those fishing disputes in that other article. So really, I don't know. I think it's best to revisit all these issues in a little while, when the dust from all these AfDs (and I don't give a rat's ass for Bali's nominations, many of which have been defeated by now) has settled. Later, Drmies (talk) 17:46, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Automatic processing of your editor review
This is an automated message. Your editor review is scheduled to be closed on 23 April 2009 because it will have been open for more than 30 days and inactive for more than 7. You can keep it open longer by posting a comment to the review page requesting more input. End of line. DustyBot (talk) 05:47, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
I have essentially cited your research in my keep vote at the this AFD. You may be interested in chiming in yourself. Great job with locating the sources! Lets see if we can turn the tide. Abecedare (talk) 06:34, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Hmm, that's a tough call. IMO, it's best to hold off on the chart, at least until Nebraska come out with more conclusive evidence. –Juliancolton | Talk02:23, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up on the discussions I have left comments on them, but I couldn't agree with your stance more just a few minutes ago I ran across an afd where I found literally hundreds and hundreds of refs on but there were claimed to be none. It seems like this is starting to go overboard and there is no way possible I can get to every last one of these afds there are so many. But as I said afds like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/São Tomé and Príncipe – United States relations have no place on Wikipedia. -Marcusmax(speak) 14:06, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
I am sure there are many articles which do not belong on wikipedia. I go through many of the new Afds and I let them get deleted, by not commenting on the Afd, not adding {{rescue}}, and not alerting the creator of steps he an take to try and rescue the page, because the article is unrescuable.
The Rescue Barnstar is awarded to people who rescue articles from deletion. This can be independent of or in cooperation with the Article Rescue Squadron.
This Barnstar is awarded to Marcusmax for his incredible dedication in rescuing country relation articles. Your tireless efforts are an example to all wikipedians. Keep up the good work. Ikip (talk) 16:44, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
You may want to drop the wp:point argument, even if it is true, it doesn't help your case or argument in the afd's. Editors don't like it when editors discuss their personalities or other editor's personalities and editing habits, even if it is strikingly obvious. I know this is hard. Stick to the reason why the article should be kept.
Okay. I agree 100% with your views, but there are legal fictions and social norms on wikipedia which prevent us from saying the emporer has no clothes. Ikip (talk) 23:46, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
We are a growing community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to identifying, categorizing, and improving articles relevant to the relations between two countries.
If you have any questions, feel free to ask on the talk page, and we will be happy to help you.
I like what you have done, with the large numbers of Afds on bilateral relations, embassies and diaspora groups being nominated it is hard for me to get to every one so others updating articles is great. Obviously the article is notable I am going to go chime in a keep which should put it to "no consensus". The multiple bios, and refs introduced by you demonstrate notability. -Marcusmax(speak) 23:49, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback and support. I find that a lot of these country/country relationships are interesting when I dig into them - often for quite different reasons. I wish that the user who started most of them had done a bit more research first. My guess is that User:Groubani felt it was useful, and put a lot of work into tracking down the embassies and making the maps, but did not realize the effect would often be deletion and then a big red flag for anyone who wanted to write something about the relation (or relationship - not the same) Oh well... Aymatth2 (talk) 00:03, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
On your DYK suggestion, I am too lazy to do the more thorough research needed to make them good enough. But thanks for the feedback - glad someone else thinks these little bios are interesting. Aymatth2 (talk) 18:08, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the sources- I've just finished with the article for now and I thought you deserved recognition since I used a load of them (and one or two of my own) in my expansion. Why don't you take a look at the article? A fresh pair of eyes couldn't hurt! Kind regards, HJMitchellYou rang? 19:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Much appreciated! The image, I'm afraid I can't take credit for. T'was there before I got my teeth into it but it is a nice touch. It could do with having the infobox put back- I took it out because it didn't have the image in it and it just cluttered the article. I don;t know enough about templates (Come to that, I know next to nothing about templates!) to fiddle with it- I don't suppose you'd be up to it or know someone who would be? Regards and thanks again, HJMitchellYou rang? 22:15, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm no better if it's any consolation! It all gets a little too technical for me! I'll see if I can't find someone with a better knowledge! Regards, HJMitchellYou rang? 23:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
RE: "I am a bit of a policy wiz and often I dig things up deep within the Wikimedia system. Surely in the history of Afds, at some point or another an AFD has been suspended until a decision is made. I am thinking there must be some policy that can enact at least a short time restraint on these afds. So I will go digging around and see if any such policy or guideline exists. However we must all assume good faith in the mean time that people will either stop their nominations or nominate only articles that have no notability whatsoever. -Marcusmax(speak) 22:17, 13 May 2009 (UTC)"
Too bad there is not something more in policy. Regardless, I took DGG's suggestion and in the spirit of WP:Ignore all rules, put it up for a "support" "oppose" decision. Ikip (talk) 06:33, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
I wish I could tell you, I couldn't even decipher the message past that I should be blocked. I tried to contact the User via his talk page, but was reverted for using "bad humor". Overall I am not trying to instigate anything just really want to know what his rationale was for wanting me blocked. Ohh well I think its over now. -Marcusmax(speak) 01:04, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Oh dear! I had much the same problem. You must have made your way into this guy's bad books somehow! Give us a shout if anything kicks off! Good to see you around in AfD. I've just found the time to trawl through and comment on every bilateral at AfD this week- there's a lot of shit in there but two or three might be worth merging but, seriously, Belgium-Kyrgyzstan relations- what relations! Regards, HJMitchellYou rang? 01:15, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
I haven't got around to about half the articles on bi-laterals this week, it's been a draining few weeks/months with these articles. If I don't find any sources for relationships now I will almost certainly state my opinion as a re-direct only because it is important to save the name of the relations articles so Ikip and others don't have to recreate thousands of re-directs, although it would help there edit count. In regards to the one you just mentioned, it is quite a long shot from being notable. Some sources I found include, [3], [4], [5], [6]. I think you would agree that it is pretty trivial so this is a clear choice for a re-direct. -Marcusmax(speak) 01:26, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
My revisions to Ohio State University, Lima Campus, are not vandalism. Both statements are true and verifiable. The student body is of extremely low quality; one simply has to compare the completion rate (i. e. getting a BA) at the campus with the university as a whole. The faculty is extremely weak, in terms of research productivity, external grants, and other quantifiable matters, when compared to the university as a whole. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stenve (talk • contribs) 01:59, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps, but at the same time the language of your revision reads as vandalism, if you wish to include such information please source it and right it in a neutral way, see WP:NPOV.-Marcusmax(speak) 02:02, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Hello, I've recently tried to restore this page to a version which can be improved upon (a non-protected, non-disambiguation page) and I wondered if I could get your opinion about whether it is currently up to the quality which we expect of every Wikipedia article. I would appreciate your comments on the article at User:Cdogsimmons/Estonia–Luxembourg relations on the talk page there, and further improvements that would get it closer to inclusion status are always welcome. Thanks.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 22:58, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
I am quite unsure why you are editing, making notes or trying to delete my page. Even though anyone is able to edit pages I am not sure why you are targeting our page. Please cease and deist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.35.194.80 (talk) 01:41, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
school articles
I would say group AfD, then consensus would reveal merge or delete. I'm not at all a fan of keeping elementary school articles. almost all fail WP:ORG or WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 00:59, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
I would post {{Mergeto|summary article}} notices on each article, leave them a couple of weeks, then where there is no objection just go ahead and merge into a summary article. Only post articles to AfD that are trivial, there is an objection to merge but there is no attempt to expand. Group AfD's can run into problems when it turns out that one member of the group is in fact notable, even if all the others are not. Individual AfDs would flood the AfD. And I thought some of the bi-lateral relations stubs were trivial! Aymatth2 (talk) 12:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
I find it hard to imagine anyone objecting to a merge - you could probably just go ahead and do it without a notice. The only reason I suggest posting a mergeto notice first, then merging, is that I got some kick-back from merging without notice some of the more trivial bi-lateral stubs. But yes, if there has been controversy before go ahead with AfD. I have to wonder why these stubs were created the first place. Maybe some sort of high school project? Stubs! I have nothing against them in general, but they should be created with at least one or two external sources that indicate notability. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Autoreviewer request
Just for your information: You have 39 articles, 1 category and 1 template (not counted redirects and not counting deleted). Good luck, I hope they will approve. :) Make sure that you put the pages of the communities you will create in a proper category right away. It helps organize oneself, and it's a good habit. take care. Dc76\talk00:28, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi! I use the DeLorme Wisconsin Atlas and Gazateer. It comes in handy especially in tracking down what towns that these unincorporated communities are in. RoyalBroil has a copy too. I highly recommend you get a copy.Many thanks-RFD (talk) 23:52, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
I've noticed your new articles on Wisconsin communities, too. Good job and keep up the great work! I'm adding articles on these unincorporated communities as I drive through them and take photographs. I keep my Atlas in my car so that I don't get lost as I travel! Royalbroil04:10, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
I looked on that link you provided on my talk page, and I found quite a few images, and I have always wondered, how exactly do you upload pictures? Response will be much appreciated. Please try to descibe the process in as much detail as possible. Hurricanekiller1994 (talk) 05:16, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Just 2 question's. One, how do you put the image on a select page, and two, can I log into Wikimedia Commons with my profile here on Wikipedia? Respond quickly. Hurricanekiller1994 (talk) 19:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Its been a long time since I promised to post images of Butch O'hare's aircraft in Concourse B. I know you are not working right now on this article. But contacting you since I promised.
The other day my flight landed in Terminal 3. So trekked back to Concourse B at 11.30 PM (local). Here's my pictures from my Nokia 5310.
Not exactly award winning quality but it was the best I could do. I don't travel that often out of ORD. But will try to get better pictures. Preferably daytime and preferably on a regular camera. Do you think those are at all usable in the ORD's article ?
As a member of the Aviation WikiProject or one of its subprojects, you may be interested in testing your skills in the Aviation Contest! I created this contest, not to pit editor against editor, but to promote article improvement and project participation and camraderie. Hopefully you will agree with its usefulness. Sign up here, read up on the rules here, and discuss the contest here. The first round of the contest may not start until September 1st-unless a large number of editors signup and are ready to compete immediately! Since this contest is just beginning, please give feedback here, or let me know what you think on my talkpage. - TrevorMacInniscontribs23:10, 22 August 2009 (UTC)