User talk:Saalstin/Archive 2

Stephen King

I have to admit, I thought the edit wasn't going to last as long as it did. It's just, isn't that what you think when you see that picture? It was too hard not to make that edit. Alexbeard (talk) 13:12, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of PROD from Anna-Maria Galojan

Hello Saalstin, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Anna-Maria Galojan has been removed. It was removed by Reeshelen with the following edit summary '(no edit summary)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with Reeshelen before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 01:07, 2 September 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)[reply]

Removal of PROD from Daniel Zimmermann

Hello Saalstin, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Daniel Zimmermann has been removed. It was removed by Noebse with the following edit summary '(-Deletion: Wikipedia:Notability (people) Politicians Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage.[7] Generally speaking, mayors are likely to meet this criterion ->refs)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with Noebse before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 20:52, 2 September 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)[reply]

RE: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anna-Maria Galojan

Would you considering userfying the article which you put up for deletion? The will delete it from main space completely and move it to a subpage of the creators.

The editor is a new editor, and this will give the new user a chance to rework this article and maybe wikipedia will get a longterm dedicated editor.

Please let me know as soon as possible, because as soon as someone else comments on the AfD, they must agree also before I can userfy the article. Thanks for your time.Ikip (talk) 15:16, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No objection to you having done this, but please place a {{NOINDEX}} at the top of the article when you do it. Otherwise, Google still finds the article, and presents it to searchers as if it were a real article.—Kww(talk) 13:17, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
From user talk ikip:
Userfied per recommendation, we'll see how that goes :) --Saalstin (talk) 13:02, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and made a stern warning to the editor to follow up with yours, and requested the link to the user page be speedy deleted. Thank you so much for giving the editor a second chance. I like your noindex idea. I was wondering whether I should do this with this article, and you confirmed that it is the right thing to do.
The Helping Hand Barnstar
This barnstar is awarded to Saalstin. Saalstin, thank you for thinking about the concerns of brand new editors and fostering the development of new editors. Your efforts to build the project are commendable. Ikip (talk) 16:25, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't believe you want to delete this article!!! Haven't you read WP:HOTTIE?! Fences&Windows 17:22, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Browne

Re. Jeremy Browne. The newspaper article exists and a copy can be made available to you on request if you need confirmation. The young woman concerned was interviewed by the editor and the MP concerned never tried to throw a writ or attempt to silence it before publication. I am not the editor but have seen the material. Yes the paper did have a conservative bias and yes we ought have that in mind. Your wording seens reasonable in the circumstances. I have resisted removal of that element of the page and your tone seems a well reasoned approach. Verthandi

I offer copiy of original press report repeatedly. I now conclude that you must be politically inspired to censor the truth. At the time of the original article J Browne did not challenge it. Do you wish sworn statements to be used? If so what corroroation is there for the positive material. You are acting as a biased editor and I will seek out how I may complain about your censorship. Verthandi —Preceding unsigned comment added by Verthandi (talk • contribs) 06:30, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Administrative Meeting for Senators not on the list of another Group

Updated DYK query On September 25, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Administrative Meeting for Senators not on the list of another Group, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 04:22, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Formosa

Dear Saalstin, Thank you for your message. I'm not sure what you mean by my having a "personal stake" in the matter. Nobody asked or ordered me to create this article; I did it entirely of my own volition. I live in Taunton and am involved in local politics, hence I am in a good position to be able to write it. The only stake I have is in the fact that I have created what I think is a pretty decent article, which does absolutely no harm to Wikipedia, and, on the contrary, benefits it by adding reliable and well-sourced information about a significant local political figure.

I understand that there cannot be an article about every minor celebrity. However, the grounds for deletion rested on what I believe to be an erroneous reading of the WP:POLITICIAN criterion. I have explained this numerous times but no-one seems to have tried to contest the points I was making. Instead, it was deleted by an administrator who simply stated, baldly, that it did not meet them. He made no attempt to explain or justify this. Moreover, deletion is supposed to be the result of consensus, of which there was quite plainly none. Hence I believe that he has exceeded his authority.

As regards the pages about other PPCs, I don't see why they should have been deleted either. As long as they are well-sourced and reliable, and benefit from the usual process of revision by discussion, they surely cannot do any harm. I think Annunziata Rees-Mogg is particularly worthy of inclusion since, as well as being Somerton and Frome's Conservative PPC, she is a leader-writer on the Daily Telegraph and daughter of Lord Rees-Mogg (her brother, by contrast, does get an entry). In any case, I understand from Wikipedia's deletion guidelines that comparison with other pages is not the done thing, as every page is unique and must be judged on its own merits.

In view of the above, I am disputing the deletion. QuantockWarrior (talk) 15:48, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

QW,
What I meant by your having a 'personal stake' is that you may - as you seem to agree - be close to the subject matter. Whilst that may mean you're well informed and well placed to write about a topic, it can also mean that it's harder to see your own biases - these aren't bad, we all have them, but it's important to try to be aware of them, and to come together to make neutral articles. You also might like be aware of our policy WP:OWN, as you seem to be slightly possessive over it.
Deletion discussions are about determining consensus, based on policy - a hundred people in a discussion about an article saying "keep it, i like it" would be outweighed by a single person citing WP policy on why that article should be deleted, because our decisions are based on weight of argument, not loudness with which they're made. In this case, we have policy and established consensus that merely being a candidate is not in itself enough for an article - the press coverage Formosa has is because he is a candidate, and is what would be expected for any candidate. If he wins, he will of course be immediately entitled to an article, but until that point, unless you can demonstrate his notability beyond simply being a candidate, it is unlikely that the community will change its views on his inclusion.
Regarding the other PPCs, I think you misunderstood - I wasn't comparing one to another, I was pointing you in the direction of similar discussions. Other candidates have been kept, when it has been found that they did indeed matter for other reasons - notability for reasons beyond simply being a candidate. The discussions I gave you were simply a taster of the community's views on the WP:POLITICIAN criteria, not an effort to suggest any one of those discussions could be transplanted straight onto the Formosa article.
It's clear that you're disputing it, I was merely trying to explain why it had happened in the first place, and why it is unlikely to change (glancing at the DR, you may have noticed heavy endorsement of the decision as made). If you want help understanding policies, then any editor is available to help you. All the best --Saalstin (talk) 17:04, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Saalstin, As regards my 'personal stake', even if I am particularly prone to bias (and everyone is, to some extent), I don't see why this would be an argument for deletion. On the contrary, it would be an argument for inviting other Wikipedia contributors, including Formosa's opponents, to contribute. In fact, this has already happened. As C.Fred will tell you, the user Milk76 is none other than Jeremy Browne MP himself, and when the article was first created he made several changes to it, which I was happy to accept. (Incidentally, Milk76 never advocated the article's deletion until you proposed it, at which point he jumped on the bandwagon.) I appreciate that the article is not 'mine', and am not trying to be possessive of it; on the contrary, I would have liked it if more people had contributed to it so that it represented a community effort rather than an essay by me. This could have happened if the article had been retained.

Your argument about consensus seems to be contradictory. You say that deletion discussions are based on consensus, but then go on to say that one person citing WP policy would be outweighed by 100 who shout 'keep it'. Fine, I agree: 100 people can be wrong. But in that case there is no consensus, is there? Either you make decisions based on how many people agree (consensus) or you stick with the strength of the arguments, which is entirely different. All "consensus" usually indicates is the strength of the herd mentality. (This whole argument puts me strongly in mind of the controversy over man-made global warming.)

In any case, WP policy is open to interpretation. You say that Formosa does not qualify for WP:POLITICIAN because all his press attention is solely in connection with his status as a candidate. This is not actually what the policy explicitly requires, but is instead your subjective interpretation of it. I would beg to differ, on the grounds that if a candidate has received sufficient press attention, he is sufficiently notable simply by virtue of his role as a well-known candidate. In my view, including PPCs would enhance Wikipedia as an encyclopedia, as long as all information were well-sourced and reliable. I consider this to be a stronger argument than yours, and that of those who are now herding round to defend the article's deletion. At least in your case you have justified your point of view, although I disagree with your justification. But in everyone else's case, they simply state it without providing any reasoning. Take a look at the argument on AfD: BlackKite, having been challenged to explain his reasoning, simply reasserts that WP:POLITICIAN is not fulfilled. No argumentation whatsoever is adduced. So: should we go with the "consensus", which simply represents a herd of users parroting unsupported prejudice, or should we weigh the strength of the arguments, which is something completely different?

I am grateful for your correspondence on this matter. QuantockWarrior (talk) 10:07, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

QW,
I never said your biases were a reason for deletion, I was trying to help you see why you don't agree with our decision. Excluding myself and the closing admin, Black Kite's decision has so far been endorsed by 5 formerly completely disinterested editors and C.Fred who initially weakly argued to keep the article, but feels Black Kite correctly interpreted the discussion.
You seem to be having some difficulty understanding the way WP works. In addition to the deletion debates I already gave you, you may find WP:PRACTICAL helpful in learning about how we reach consensus. As I said before, it is based on weight of argument, not loudness with which people shout. We don't require unanimity, nor do we count 'votes' - indeed, we don't have votes, we have discussions. Try thinking of it as similar to weighted voting, where demonstration of how a policy is met or not increases the power of a statement. They're not simply counting a show of hands, but determining a consensus around policy. The 'herd mentality' is precisely what we seek to avoid (although if you wanted to contribute, I'm sure the crowd at Global warming would welcome your insight). You can think your argument is as powerful as you like and your article as worthy for inclusion as you like, but I'm afraid the deletion discussion did not agree, and nor has the review of that discussion.
There is a settled consensus that merely being a candidate is not intrinsically notable, and repeated candidates have previously been deleted, even when they have stood for election several times and acquired local coverage based on this. This may give you some idea of how the community feels about the notability of candidates. If you feel that they should be included, you could try persuading people for a change of policy at the notability (people) talk page, and you may also find useful discussions at the WikiProject Politics talk page. You may also discover that it's easier to persuade editors to agree with you if you stop using terms like 'a herd parotting unsupported prejudice'. All the best --Saalstin (talk) 11:21, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of PROD from Ramesh Karad

Hello Saalstin, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Ramesh Karad has been removed. It was removed by Jazzradio with the following edit summary '(no edit summary)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with Jazzradio before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 20:59, 29 September 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages) 20:59, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Browne

Re Jeremy Browne. I offer a copy of the paper article even if you are a memeber or supporter of his political party - Verthandi —Preceding unsigned comment added by Verthandi (talk • contribs) 19:04, 2 October 2009 (UTC) I have repeatedly offered proof. Your warning is noted. I see this as abuse of power as well as bias. And yet a young woman was pestered. Verthandi. I will not now be adding material on the campaigns of Alfred the Great as I am repelled by the abuse of power. Verthandi —Preceding unsigned comment added by Verthandi (talk • contribs) 11:00, 3 October 2009 (UTC) __ --Verthandi (talk) 11:32, 3 October 2009 (UTC) The recent additions are selective and biased in favour of J Browne MP. I felt a wider and more balances selection would comply better--Verthandi (talk) 19:34, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That would seem to depend on where one stands on any given issue - the IP's contribution states that he has voted for and against certain things, and does not qualify whether they should be thought of as 'good' or 'bad' on any given item - so the bias is more with the reader than the article. Nevertheless, if you feel the selection is too narrow, I would suggest that you expand it, with sourced, neutrally worded additions, rather than undoing the work of others without explanation. Yours --Saalstin (talk) 19:42, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately you require justification for critical inclusions and just go with the flow with Liberal Democrat sources like Milk76 who seems to be Jeremy Browne himself. Does an encyclopedia exist to assist self publicity. Can you please remove user page for ME under name Verthandi --Verthandi (talk) 16:11, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Irish money

Hi Saalstin, thank you for your explanation. I've start a speedy deletion request because I uploaded my own Irish coins and they were tagged with the same reason I gave for the deletion: the Irish copyright law (see http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Currency#Ireland) I think it's fair that if I cannot upload my images for that reason, is the same for all Wikipedians, isn't it? Anyway, I'll follow your recommendation about the tag {{di-disputed fair use rationale|concern={{{1}}} Kind regards--Mvllez (talk) 15:15, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mvllez,
Thanks for your message - from the link you provided, would I be right in assuming that you'd uploaded your photos to the Wikimedia Commons? They use stricter criteria than the English Wikipedia (because if a file is at the Commons it can be used anywhere, whereas if it's only on en.wiki, it can only be used on en.wiki). The photos you tagged had a 'fair use rationale' on them which is used where a user wants to explain why their non-free content should be permitted, and there's a policy on non-free content - basically to use it as little as possible, and only where unavoidable - so, for example, copyright coins can never have an image that is within copyright, so under the US law (state of Florida, where Wikipedia servers are based), there's a limited tolerance of the breach, so long as it's not commercial, low quality, etc. I hope this helps somewhat? (If you've got any questions, comments or reply, do please leave me a message, or you might find more knowledgeable people at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content) Cheers, --Saalstin (talk) 15:48, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again. I thought the policy on Wikipedia was the same for everybody, but it seems the opposite. I'll have to upload my Irish coins to English Commons to be not deleted ;-) Thanks again--Mvllez (talk) 15:55, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 7 December 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost: 14 December 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 December 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 December 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 January 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 11 January 2010

EP parliament for Luxemburg

Not Viviane Reding in EU parliament. She is a commissioner. The correct politician is Georges Bach of CSV. GLGermann (talk) 14:28, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not in Parliament no, but she was elected to it, before being renominated as Commissioner, hence her appearance at the time that article was created.
That it took the better part of a year for anyone to notice is an unfortunate indictment of the number of people paying attention to such articles! --Saalstin (talk) 18:59, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 18 January 2010

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Saalstin! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 12 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

  1. Claude Gewerc - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 06:46, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 25 January 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 February 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 8 February 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 15 February 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 22 February 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 March 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 8 March 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 15 March 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 22 March 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 29 March 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 April 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 April 2010

Jeremy Browne Page

Please could you have a look at this page again. There is another edit war over a potentially harmful piece being added.--OutragedOfOake (talk) 11:27, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 April 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 April 2010