| Revision as of 05:16, 26 April 2009 editAlansohn (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers504,901 edits →Issues regarding close of Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 April 17#Category:Knuckleball pitchers: reply to more ]ing from Kbdank71, refere him to WP:ANI← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 02:07, 2 March 2010 edit undoJc37 (talk | contribs)Administrators49,024 editsm blank | ||
| (112 intermediate revisions by 41 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{User talk:Jc37/Top}} | |||
| {{User:Jc37/NavBar}} | |||
| <br clear="all" /> | |||
| {{TOCright}} | |||
| == Happy New Year! == | |||
| Dear Jc37, | |||
| Wishing you a happy new year, and very best wishes for 2009. Whether we were friends or not in the past year, I hope 2009 will be better for us both. | |||
| Kind regards, | |||
| ''']''' ] 21:02, 1 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ==Hey, Jc== | |||
| Happy New Year! Hope it's off to a good start. -- ] (]) 01:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ==]== | |||
| Hi Jc37. Back in October you if it was okay to edit the survey about fictional topics I wrote. I've been meaning to get back to you. Did you find the survey from ] at the village pump? I've just rewritten the whole thing, and it's still in my userspace. I personally think it's ready to be presented to the wider community, but I would like some outside opinions first. I've asked at ] if I could mention it in {{tl|fiction notice}} (which is transcluded on several talk pages). I would really appreciate any comments you may have about the survey on ]. And please edit the survey if you would like. Thanks :) --] (]) 18:21, 18 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ==Tamil terrorists CFD closure== | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| Perfect, we will discuss in ] and come up with 1 to 3 options. Thansk for reading through it all and coming up with a great solution. ] (]) 16:52, 26 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| thanks for going through the pains of closing the Tamil terrorist CfD. Your closing is very reasonable, and I do not envy you for having had to get through the "debate". Had I known beforehand how involved this would get, I would have tried to find a way less prone to drama than CfD. Again, thanks for your reasonable closure. ] (]) 21:45, 30 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Socks? == | |||
| ; EstherLois a sock of Pastorwayne? | |||
| Hello Jc37. I came across your name since Esther is mentioned in your file at ]. Kittybrewster has opened a complaint at ] that Esther is a Pastorwayne sock. The contributions certainly look like those of Pastorwayne. ] (]) 16:14, 28 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :See my latest comments at ]. Your opinion would still be valuable if you're around. ] <sup>]</sup> 00:38, 29 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ; Hugo999 | |||
| *] | |||
| Talking about rapid category creation . :-) ] ] 16:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Hugo999 is from New Zealand and is a long-time contributor. Unlikely to be a sock of the person you are thinking of. I wonder if there is a tool to show how many categories a person has created. ] (]) 17:38, 31 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Commentary requested == | |||
| Hey there. :) Could you have a look at ] and see if there is any commentary you would like to add? Maybe if I'm not alone in this, we can get some action going? ] (]) 13:45, 26 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :As others can likely attest to, I'm normally more than happy to jump in and join in on such discussions. | |||
| :Atm, though, after reading through everything, I'm slightly cringing. | |||
| :I think the intentions are well-meant, but I'm rather very concerned that these well-meant intentions will lead to an arbitrary gutting of articles for no other purpose than someone subjectively has decided that certain things shouldn't be covered, or that some section(s) should be "shorter". | |||
| :I'm all for brevity and being concise as long as the subject matter is covered. But I believe that (for example) it was a really bad idea to decide that Final Crisis shouldn't have any plot summary whatsoever. | |||
| :Plot summaries aren't a vice. Long, stream of consciousness, rambling, too duplicative of tha narrative, plot summaries are what we should be focused on. Gutting more than that would be like removing chunks of Einstein's biography simply because he did too many things in his life. | |||
| :Hence my concerns. And hence my hesitence to join in on what I think could be counter productive to Misplaced Pages. | |||
| :If you feel that I'm missing something, ''please'', inform me. | |||
| :Btw, this missive aside, thanks for the note, I honestly welcome notices. My watchlist is massive to say the least, and I'm only just now coming back (somewhat) from wikibreak. | |||
| :Hope you're having a great day : ) - ] 00:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Actually, I do think you're missing something... my comments on the talk page were supposed to reflect my opinions that plot summaries are a good thing and should be kept... a large part of my comments were actually criticism of the growing sentiment on the talk page that plot summaries ''should'' be mostly gutted (and I don't feel they should). I admit that some are heavily overdetailed and may need some trimming, but it is firmly my opinion that a far more important thing than trimming any bios is finding the all-too-important developer commentary and critical reception which are necessary to take an article to GA and beyond. A GA reviewer will probably tell you to cut down excessive plot summary yes, but they will never take you seriously if you have little or no development or reception info. See what Emperor recently added to ] for the sort of thing I mean. Note that I'm definitely advocating adding this sort of content to comics characters articles, and while I admit that some FCBs need to be shortened (see, again, Green Goblin), I'm not going to be the one doing it or even advocating it. Now, read my comments again and hopefully you'll see where I'm coming from a bit better. :) | |||
| The "arbitrary gutting of articles for no other purpose than someone subjectively has decided that certain things shouldn't be covered" has already begun, and I'm no fan of it. Read ] if you haven't already, which is what I was responding to. One of the main proponents of this approach was the first one to reply to my comments, and he has gotten Asgardian firmly on his side (something I would never had expected had I not seen it myself). If you've been away for awhile, see , , and , and Asgardian's even more aggressive approach on , , and ... if you're concerned about disappearing plot summaries, then we need an alternative solution. These rewrites have thus far been far from the best quality writing, and I fear that this approach is actually ''dropping'' article quality more than raising it. Those in favor of out-of-universe-only articles do have a few good points about certain things that need to happen with character articles, but so far I feel the results leave something to be desired and this total derision of in-universe plot summary is unnecessary and unhelpful. | |||
| My intention is to take articles to GA class and beyond, as I stated ]. If the whole Wikiproject really does start to focus on just removing plot summary, that's not going to get anything to GA anytime soon. If, however, we all start focusing on finding creator interviews, product reviews, and the like, we'll have GAs coming out of our ears. ] (]) 01:44, 1 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Indeed - if you read my comments in the improve or die section I expressed my lack of support for a plan that ''would'' have involved gutting an awful lot of articles. What BOZ suggested was more along the lines of ideas we'd previously discussed (which I think are linked from one of the sections below) in whcih we focus on improving a handful of articles at one time - focusing on low qaulity but important articles that should be better, as well as trying to get a few more of the high importance B or C articles up to GA and beyond. I am certainly happy to support a plan along those lines. (] (]) 17:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC)) | |||
| ::I actually ''did'' get that sense from your comments, Emperor. My concern is that these well-meant actions may lead to others' actions which may not be what the two of you (or I) would intend. (As BOZ is noting above.) | |||
| ::Which is why I hesitate. | |||
| ::All too often I've joined in on a project to "help", only to find that the "fixed" boundaries aren't so fixed, and a "new" set of editors decide to slash and burn. Which is fine to a point in that this is a WIki and it ''should'' be possible for ]. It's just that it's disenheartening watching as so much information is removed from the enecyclopedia so arbitrarily/subjectively. | |||
| ::I think that rather than just have a few articles as "good" examples, perhaps we should build a couple exemplars? Select a few characters at various levels of presentation (40+ year character history, 20+ year, 10+ year, 5+ year, 1+ year, or some such), showing how each might be presented differently. Hitting the salient "points" (without noting their daily lunch choices). | |||
| ::Then do the same for the other fictional constructs (locations, objects, concepts), serial items (comic books, story arcs, episodes, etc.), and creators. | |||
| ::And I believe that the comics creators is the project's weakest point. We should get at least a few people active on the task force, and think about how ] affects comics media-related articles. And how to translate that to good/FA articles as well. | |||
| ::Anyway, I'm off on a bit of a tangent here. I guess the shorter answer might be: I think I agree with you in principle, but I'm concerned about implementation. - ] 19:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::Well, it was my intention in good faith to see what I could do with ] and ] this weekend... I'm not sure if I'll have the time, but I'll do my best. Hopefully, Emperor and I will be able to do some good work to push those into GA status in the near future. I share your concerns, to be honest, but since the removal of information is already ongoing, I might as well put in my best efforts to keep other things going in a positive direction. ] (]) 20:42, 1 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::Also, I 100% agree that creator articles should be much more of a focus than they are right now. If you have another look at my "Good Article drive" thread, you'll see ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], and ] as articles which hopefully shouldn't need a ton of work to get to GA. ] (]) 20:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Though I think that you both likely know this already, just to quickly clarify (since, in reading the above, I am concerned that perhaps I was a bit semi-opaque), my comments about "arbitrary" and "subjective" choices, wasn't in reference to anyone specific, and especially not either of you two, who I know from past experience to be rather careful and detail-oriented. - ] 07:15, 4 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I know. I think we're both pretty unhappy about what's been going on, using the current state of ] as an example for things to come. :( ] (]) 13:43, 4 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == How's tricks? == | |||
| Hi there! It's been a while, hasn't it? :) –''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 20:37, 4 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ==Barnstar== | |||
| {| style="border: 1px solid gray; background-color: #fdffe7;" | |||
| |rowspan="2" valign="middle" | ] | |||
| |rowspan="2" | | |||
| |style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''The Barnstar of Peace''' | |||
| |- | |||
| |style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | ''The Barnstar of Peace is awarded to users who have helped to peacefully resolve conflicts on Misplaced Pages.'' | |||
| This barnstar is awarded to Jc37 for his incredible efforts to help resolve complex and difficult conflicts. Jc37 is an incredibly effective peacemaker and diplomat, and a true asset to the project. Thank you for your hard work and dedication. ] (]) 09:07, 25 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| |} | |||
| :thanks again: ] As suggested! ] (]) 13:07, 25 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == My thoughts == | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| Since you had lent your support previously, I'm letting you know that I've had some time to think about it, and ]. ] (]) 22:16, 24 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Things have progressed, in case you wanted an update. :) ] (]) 04:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Have you seen it yet? ] (]) 23:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Croatian-Australian Socceroos == | |||
| The information about "Croatian-Australian Socceroos" basically refers to Australian international soccer players who are of Croatian origin. ] concluded that the information should not be present on Misplaced Pages in article form; this ] concluded that it should not be present on Misplaced Pages in category form. If people don't want the information as an article, and don't want it as a category, then why is it still on Misplaced Pages? I would take this to ] but don't know if that is a suitable forum for what I'm after, as currently when the article is deleted the category is restored, and vice versa - any help would be appreciated. I have contacted yourself as closer of the category discussion, and {{User|Black Kite}} as closer of the AfD. Perhaps you can post on my talk page, so we can have a three-way discussion? Kind regards, ]] 21:14, 25 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Alternatively, you can join the discussion at ]. ]] 21:16, 25 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Please also be aware of ]. ] (]) 21:20, 25 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::Thank you for the notice. I've commented there. - ] 09:33, 27 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ==User:C S== | |||
| ;Thanks | |||
| Thanks for your attempts to back me up at ]. He appears to be quite protective of his talk page—assumes that more than 2 posts to the page by anyone is "harassment", feels entitled to delete some comments from a thread, etc. According to his comments at ], he's now going to take the issue to ]. That should be interesting! ] <sup>]</sup> 07:00, 26 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ;Archived thread | |||
| I've archived the thread from ] ] if you happen to want it sometime. It includes posts deleted by ], along with relevant edit summaries, etc. ] <sup>]</sup> 00:04, 27 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ==Beauty of a category== | |||
| {{cat|Fictional characters who've made pacts with devils}}. Includes ], of course. Honestly, I haven't the energy to nominate it. ] <sup>]</sup> 10:11, 13 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| : The same hand has created ] ... perhaps the PastorWayne barnstar for inspirational creation is due. ] (]) 13:40, 15 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'm confused. | |||
| ::I'm looking over the user's contribs (including deleted contribs), and they seem to be focused on ''deleting'' these types of categories. We're missing something here, I think. - ] 00:56, 16 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Thank you! == | |||
| Thanks for your participation in my recent ], and for helping to encourage me to accept the nomination. :) It's good to be in the company of so many admins on the comics project! I don't know if you've seen what we've been up to with the latest GA drive; so far we've gotten ], ], ], ], ], ], ], and ] promoted and are always on the lookout for new nominations to work on. Happy editing! :) ] (]) 04:00, 17 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Don't you just love it when your carefully crafted CfD closing rationale is pretty much ignored? == | |||
| *]. ] <sup>]</sup> 10:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Issues regarding close of ] == | |||
| I am rather curious to gain a batter understanding of your reasoning in closing ] as "Listify and Delete", all the more so based on the actual content of the discussion that took place. While your comments in closing may have constituted an interesting vote, they appear to be in direct conflict with Misplaced Pages policy and any appropriate manner of determining consensus. The initial CfD for this category, posted on April 6, violated Misplaced Pages policy by failing to include a notification on the category itself, as ] himself acknowledged at ] after an initial close of delete. Even without any proper notification, and no apparent understanding of the sport by any of the participants, there was no obvious consensus to delete. After I provided rather clear and convincing evidence at ] and in my vote demonstrating that the category captures a strong defining characteristic based on dozens of reliable and verifiable sources to support the claims, every individual who participated in the discussion voted to keep the category. Claims of ] almost always rely on the tortured logic of shoehorning anything into "performer by performance", and the possibility was raised and rejected by consensus. Your close relies on OCAT and doesn't claim that this category meets the criteria, but uses the strained logic of being merely "similar to other types of OCAT, such as performers by performance". ] was the only editor who even mentioned a navbox as a comment, and ultimately decided to vote keep based on the additional evidence provided; While it's a wonderful additional option, its creation in no way precludes the existence of a corresponding category. Your close also appears to disregard dozens of reliable and verifiable sources demonstrating the category as including a defining characteristic. While ] "already exists", it is not an article and was created solely to provide evidence used by all participants who read it. Again, while I may build it into an article in the future, its existence also has no relevance to justifying deletion of the category. There is no Misplaced Pages policy which requires deletion of categories based on the existence of corresponding lists, and ] is rather clear on maintaining lists AND categories AND navboxes as options for navigation, emphasizing that "Developers of these redundant systems should not compete against each other in a destructive manner, such as by nominating the work of their competitors to be deleted just because they overlap." Given these clear contraventions of policy, I would like to ask you to reconsider your close. ] (]) 02:57, 26 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Since "''While User:Alansohn/Knuckleball pitchers "already exists", it is not an article and was created solely to provide evidence used by all participants who read it.''" sounds much like a ], I've fixed the issue by moving it to ]. Thank you for releasing your contributions under the GFDL. --] 03:10, 26 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Looks like I have a ]er. I'm not sure if you've read the page, but it is not written as an article. A cursory review of the page will show that it was written solely to serve as evidence of the defining nature of the characteristic, not as an article, despite the presence of the sources that would be necessary to recreate it as an article at some point in the future. Your blatant disruption in moving the article to article space without any consultation seems to be a clear violation of ], and your bad faith actions will be reverted. I'm glad that you don't disagree with any of the other issues raised here. ] (]) 03:58, 26 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::"''Your blatant disruption in moving the article to article space without any consultation''" How is it disruption to move an article to article space? Consultation? Alan, you do know that by adding to Misplaced Pages you irrevocable agree to release your contributions under the GFDL, right? I don't have to consult you. Besides, user space material that was ''written solely to serve as evidence'' is a violation of ], which was why I moved it. If you don't like that, ] is that way. | |||
| :::Alan, I just assumed that I'd disagree with everything you said. But I know you, and were I to actually respond to (or read, for that matter) the ] above, I'd be bombarded with more of the same, you misquoting policy, you quoting non-policy as policy, twisting my words to use against me, you know, what usually happens. And it would never end. So rather than waste my time playing that game, just know that I do disagree with you. --] 05:00, 26 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::More ]ing. Per your suggestion, your abuse has been brought to ]. Feel free to respond there and explain your actions. ] (]) 05:16, 26 April 2009 (UTC) | |||