Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:34, 18 August 2010

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160

This page has archives. Sections may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present.

Closure of Afd, Crucible of Iron Age Scotland

Are you intending on providing any explanation of this closure? I simply cannot accept a one word closure of that debate, and you are going to have to make it clear how you came to that conclusion for me not to seek a review of it based on the fact that a local consensus in an Afd cannot over-ride the consensus inherent in things like WP:N and WP:FORK. At the very least, you need to clear up which of the two contradictory keep arguments - it is notable / it doesn't have to be notable, you are using to counter-act the delete opinions. MickMacNee (talk) 15:03, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

How else could it be closed? Seriously, read the debate. One person besides you agreed with your position, while many had salient reasons for disagreeing with you. There's no strong policy-based reasoning for performing a "supervote" here and ignoring the discussion, which is what you are basically saying I should have done. However, you are wrong in one thing- a local consensus can overrule N (and FORK is irrelevant here), as WP:N says right at the top of the page, "It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." (bolding mine) Courcelles 21:21, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

That's it? You are pulling Just A Guideline on me here? I will definitely seeking review if you are, because if the idea behind the closure was to endorse the idea that WP:N does not apply, only one, maybe two, people actually said that was OK. It clearly isn't, because if this press release gives automatic notability by association, then any teenager who has a trial at a top football club is also notable - and whether you realise it or not, that's an absurd outcome. If you are counting the 'JN' opinions as the 'salient reasoning' in the Afd, by ignoring the evidence to the contrary, then I will absolutely be disagreeing, because the coverage, if you look at it, is a disgrace. Did you even look at it? MickMacNee (talk) 23:42, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd also like expansion of the idea that FORK is irrelevant. Are you saying that FORK can never be a reason to delete an article? Because I am pretty sure you are wrong. MickMacNee (talk) 23:44, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

CFORK can be used to delete something in certain circumstances (FORK cannot. If you're going to throw acronyms at me on an hour's sleep, please throw the right one). By all means take this to DRV-but I strongly suspect you will be wasting your time- there was absolutely no way that debate could have led to a delete close. No consensus would have even been a stretch of discretion. You seem to be confusing the purpose of the closer in the AFD process. It is to evaluate the discussion and close it accordingly. If the closer has to decide if the sources are enough, then we need to stop wasting time on AFD discussions. The community clearly wanted this article kept, and outside of a major BLP reason to go against that desire, the debate must be closed in accordance with the discussion. Courcelles 00:44, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I was of course talking about CFORK - the fact you didn't realise this gives me cause for concern. You are not required to qualatively assess the sources, but you are supposed to decide if the keepers are talking shite with respect to policy, meaning you have to actually look at them to judge. You are not there to be a dumb robot, counting votes if they just sound right, without any care for the source material. Otherwise, it would be pretty easy to game any quiet Afd with a bit of crafty canvassing. And it's frankly odd that you consider less than five people to represent 'the community' anyway, given that it must be over a thousand or more that drafted and consent to WP:N. All things considered, I am not convinced you've given this Afd more than a cursory look, or really thought about the implications of endorsing the keep votes without making absolutely sure they have the wording of WP:N on their side. Infact, I'm still unsure what position you've endorsed here, whether notability is satisifed, or that it doesn't matter. MickMacNee (talk) 01:02, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm tired and sick, don't give me grief like I'm supposed to read your mind towards which document you were trying to invoke. The keeps don't really agree with each other. So what? The matter at debate isn't "Why is this worth keeping" Not at all. You had to win the argument that there was a solid reason for deleting it- You need a consensus to delete something at AFD barring a damned good reason. You and User:Tom Reedy against everyone else doesn't make a consensus. You wrote a lot of words on that AFD, but apparently you didn't make your case. You're not going to convince me to change the close here, as I can't see the argument for even a no consensus close, much less the delete outcome you apparently desire. Courcelles 01:13, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

You weren't supposed to read my mind - it was patently obvious from the Afd that CFORK was the issue, not FORK. Can you not see how this sort of remark gives me serious concern that I have just wasted many hours of my life making detailed policy based arguments in an Afd, as the deletion policy requires, only for them to simply be apparently ignored in what looks like - if you are going to assert that 'it doesn't matter if keep votes contradict each other', nothing more nuanced than a simple vote count? You claim I did not make my case, yet in your one word closure you haven't for example explained how anybody made any better arguments after the point at which two people independently said that my nomination had not been adequately addressed by the keeps registered up to that point. I do not participate in Afd's for debating skills kudos - so the only way that can be read is that nobody countered the deletion rationale, and therefore, you should take that into account, and with the delete opinion that did agree with me, call this a delete outcome. Otherwise, as the closer, you absolutely have to declare on what basis this article has been kept, and explain which of two completely contradictory cases have defeated the deletion rationale, and given the complexity - how, given the evidence. Cite any precedent you like if it helps, I don't mind. I'll say it one last time, it is your responsibility to ignore keep votes that patently do not conform to policy. You cannot close something as keep if the rationales go against the evidence, and are simply based on personal assertion. If you are sick, then please just set aside your closure and find a volunteer who will be willing to do this. I've no wish to go to DRV and question your thought processes, but I can't see what choice you've left me if you won't do this. I'm honeslty happy with any closure that lays out in detail how this article is notable, per the actual policy wording, or whether the one or two people chancing their arm at an IAR/JAG opinion, can over-ride the inherent consensus in WP:N and WP:P&G. If not, I will go to DRV, and I seriously am also going to have to open up a site wide Rfc on the WP:N guideline, lay out the actual evidence of this case, and simply ask, 'WTF?', and ask if this even comes close to a situation where the guideline can simply be ignored, or if the three or four votes that were made came anywhere close to a strong consensus that this article's references met the guideline, per it's wording, or per any precedent anyone can come up with. I've been here three years, and I'm struggling to think of an even remotely comparable conclusion on such flimsy evidence. MickMacNee (talk) 14:07, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Development of Portal:Contents

Discussions on the further development of Portal:Contents have been underway. During the discussion, Fram changed the name of the outline subportal page, and that steered the discussions in an interesting and useful direction. See:

• Portal talk:Contents#Objection to the title change of "Outline of Knowledge" to "Outline of knowledge"
• Portal talk:Contents/Outline of knowledge#Objection to changing "Outline of Knowledge" to "Outline of knowledge"
• Portal talk:Contents#Proposal: Use the same naming convention for all of this portal's subpages

So, we're making some progress. But there is still a problem...

Re: Four days full protection

We're still having a problem with User:Verbal edit warring at Portal:Contents.

Even though he has encountered more opposition than support, Verbal keeps removing "Outline of knowledge" from Portal:Contents, {{Contents pages (header bar)}}, and {{Contents pages (footer box)}}.

See these threads:

• Portal talk:Contents#Outlines
• Portal talk:Contents#Oppose removal of Outline of Knowledge link from this portal's nav bar

Basically, the name of the page linked to, and all the pages listed on that page, have changed to a title that Verbal does not like ("Outline"). But that is not a valid reason to remove links to them. The list of those pages has been linked to from Portal:Contents since long before that portal ever became a portal, and long before the pages listed were called outlines. Years before.

Why remove access to the content just because the names changed?

The names of the pages have no bearing on whether or not the content should be made easily available to readers. Holding links hostage to pressure editors into changing the names of pages is not an appropriate way to go about a name change.       See: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Portal_talk:Contents&diff=375338841&oldid=375280562

Besides, Verbal has failed to achieve consensus to remove the links. They need to be put back.

Please do the following:

1. Restore the entry for "Outline of knowledge" at Portal:Contents
2. Restore "Outlines" link at {{Contents pages (header bar)}}
3. Restore "Outlines" link at {{Contents pages (footer box)}}.
4. Please protect these 3 pages
5. Please ask Verbal to stop edit warring

Thank you.

The Transhumanist    21:37, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

• Unforunately, this looks like you're asking me to make a content decision... None of the pages are protected, if you think a revert is warranted, do it. Despite that I protected the pages several weeks ago, I don't actually care either way. As to your five requests, I'm not going to make content edits; that would involve me in the dispute. Right now, protection would lock in Verbal's version, are you sure you want that? ;) And 5) Verbal has had plenty of encounters with the 3RR and is well aware of the rule. Courcelles 22:45, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I thought I was asking you to check and enforce the consensus on the talk page of the portal. He lacks consensus to remove the links. How do we get the consensus on the talk page enforced? The Transhumanist    23:31, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

You could tag it with an RFC tag, and let it run a while longer. Three comments isn't really "consensus". Someone should probably notify Verbal of the existence of the "poll" as well. Courcelles 23:34, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

It's opposition, which shows that he has not established a new consensus. That is, he does not have consensus to remove the links, and several editors have either asked him to stop or have reverted him directly, but he just continues. The Transhumanist    23:48, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

What's the name of the RfC tag? {{RfC}} seems to be for user conduct. The Transhumanist    22:47, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

There are many tags, all listed in the box on Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment. Courcelles 22:49, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 August 2010

• News and notes: Book publisher apologizes for plagiarizing photos by Wikipedians, brief news

• Spam attacks: Large scale vandalism revealed to be "study" by university researcher

• In the news: Supportive communication and missing incentives on Misplaced Pages, and more

• WikiProject report: A Pit Stop with WikiProject NASCAR

• Features and admins: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: ArbCom releases names of CU/OS applicants after delay

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

An objection

You granted user Anupam reviewer's rights. His disruptions/lack of cooperation at talk:Robbie Mannheim as well as to the article itself ought to be enough to remove these rights, and I see his probationary period is done as of two days ago. User Anupam has already been abusing his editor's rights as it is.

May I remind you: "The process of reviewing is intended as a quick check to make reasonably sure edits don't contain vandalism, violations of the policy on living people, or other obviously inappropriate content. Reviewers are users sufficiently experienced who are granted the ability to accept other users' edits. They are expected to have a reasonable editing history, know what is and what is not vandalism, and be familiar with basic content policies. Reviewer rights are granted by administrators. The permission is removed at the request of the user, the community, or the arbitration committee." From http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Pending_changes#Reviewing retrieved on 17 August 2010.

I am copying this to the main editor working on Mannheim, user Vespine.75.21.146.222 (talk) 15:01, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks 222. I've struggled with this article for a long time too. I think the main problem is that user: Anupam seems not to accept that a lot of what he uses as sources are essentially "story books". Preliminarily:

1. "Paranormal Experiences"

2. "A Faraway Ancient Country"

3. "Good Spirits, Bad Spirits: How to Distinguish Between Them"

4. "Evil: Satan, Sin, and Psychology"

I mean really, it's a joke, those sources have been disputed as POV since before I started trying to clean up this article in April, but every time someone tries to remove quotes attributed to these sources, Anupam reverts the edits and claims we're removing "the other side of the story". Trying to resolve this on the talk page has not been getting anywhere. His only saving grace is that he is laborious and polite, but perhaps that's the worst combination of traits for an editor nursing an NPOV article. I really mean no personal offence to Anupam, he has been polite and has put a lot of effort into the article, but it has been misguided. I personally think he really needs to just leave that article for a while and stop taking it personally. We need to get rid of those ridiculous sources and get the article up to scratch. Not sure if there's anything you can do as an admin, at the very least don't give Anupam more rights, that's the last thing he needs. Vespine (talk) 23:05, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Re: 30 Rock season 4 list

If you can help out, you have no idea how great this is, you just don't. :) I can help out with anything that needs work on. I just need two finish two episodes and the season will be done. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 16:45, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Don't hate me...

...but I just finished and uploaded this and was wondering if I could take it to FLC before Slumdog? - JuneGloom07 Talk? 23:04, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Sure, Slumdog is going slowly... and I have three open FLC's, with 1956 Cortina, 1994 Lillehammer, Diamondbacks, Mariners, and Volleyball all within a minimal amount of work. I'm not hard up of FLC's at the moment... nominate away! Courcelles 23:12, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I've also taken it to DYK, since it's nice and new. :) - JuneGloom07 Talk? 23:20, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Katie Couric

As long as you protected the article, would you please mind weighing in here? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 00:34, 18 August 2010 (UTC)