User talk:Geo Swan/archive/2015-08

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


If you are considering initiating an xfd on material I started

2004, 2005, 2006-01--2006-06, 2006-07--2006-10, 2006-10--2005-12, 2007-01--2007-06, 2007-07--2007-09, 2007-10--2007-12, 2008-01--2008-06, 2008-07--2008-09, 2008-10--2008-12, 2009-01--2009-03, 2009-04--2009-06, 2009-07--2009-09, 2009-10--2009-12, 2010-01, 2010-02, 2010-03, 2010-04, 2010-05, 2010-06, 2010-07, 2010-08, 2010-09, 2010-10, 2010-11, 2010-12, 2011-01, 2011-02, 2011-03, 2011-04, 2011-05, 2011-06, 2011-07, 2011-08, 2011-09, 2011-10, 2011-11, 2011-12, 2012-01, 2012-02, 2012-03, 2012-04, 2012-05, 2012-06, 2012-07, 2012-08, 2012-09, 2012-10, 2012-11, 2012-12, 2013-01, 2013-02, 2013-03, 2013-04, 2013-05, 2013-06, 2013-07, 2013-08, 2013-09, 2013-10, 2013-11, 2013-12, 2014-01, 2014-02, 2014-03, 2014-04, 2014-05, 2014-06, 2014-07, 2014-08, 2014-09, 2014-10, 2014-11, 2014-12, 2015-01, 2015-02, 2015-03, 2015-04, 2015-05, 2015-06, 2015-07, 2015-08, 2015-09, 2015-10, 2015-11, 2015-12, 2016-01, 2016-02, 2016-03, 2016-04, 2016-05, 2016-06, 2016-07, 2016-08, 2016-09, 2016-10, 2016-11, 2016-12, 2017-01, 2017-02, 2017-03, 2017-04, 2017-05, 2017-06, 2017-07, 2017-08, 2017-09, 2017-10, 2017-11, 2017-12, 2018-01, 2018-02, 2018-03, 2018-04, 2018-05, 2018-06, 2018-07, 2018-08, 2018-09, 2018-10, 2018-11, 2018-12, 2019-01, 2019-02, 2019-03, 2019-04, 2019-05, 2019-06, 2019-07, 2019-08, 2019-09, 2019-10, 2019-11, 2019-12, 2020-01, 2020-02, 2020-03, 2020-04, 2020-05, 2020-06, 2020-07, 2020-08, 2020-09, 2020-10, 2020-11, User Talk:Geo Swan/archive/list

Speedy deletion nomination of Walid Ali[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Walid Ali requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. – Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 10:41, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 10[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Libby Garvey
added links pointing to Now magazine and Columbia Pike
Joseph Medill (1908)
added a link pointing to Manitowoc
Pike Transit Initiative
added a link pointing to Now magazine

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:44, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Mohammed Omar (child detainee) for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Mohammed Omar (child detainee) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mohammed Omar (child detainee) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. The Dissident Aggressor 21:01, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 11 August[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:17, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 17[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Oakwood LRT station
added a link pointing to The Crosstown
Umm Sayyaf
added a link pointing to Yazid

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:58, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reference error[edit]

Hi Geo Swan there was a list defined reference error as a result of this edit due to CbcNorth2015-08-16 reference not being used. I just commented it out for now. Cheers. CV9933 (talk) 15:37, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your creation of a Laurence Steinberg article[edit]

Hello, Geo Swan. I saw that you linked Laurence Steinberg here and here, and in other articles, for preparation in creating an article for him. But are you sure that he is WP:Notable? Also see WP:Academic. Your first draft, for example, only includes self-references (by that, I mean references where Laurence Steinberg is the author). Flyer22 (talk) 10:54, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Flyer22: -- Yes, I do. Usually, I would look for more references before putting an article on an academic in article space. But, in AFD on academics, being appointed to a named chair at a prestigious university is generally considered as sufficient to establish an academic measured up to WP:ACADEMIC#Criteria. Geo Swan (talk) 11:10, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 19 August[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:17, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 20 August[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that some edits performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. They are as follows:

Please check these pages and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:18, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 24[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jowdat Waheed, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Skerrit. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:01, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Bright Leaves for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Bright Leaves is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bright Leaves until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Rimmel.Edits Talk 04:44, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some thoughts[edit]

In re to Bright Leaves: I work with new editors a lot. I also know Rimmel.Edits in real life. Just wanted to provide some thoughts.

Editing is daunting for new editors. People don't know what to do at first (with the bureaucracy, who can blame that?), and they definitely don't want to screw up. Editor retention is one of the most important problems we need to tackle on Wikipedia, and we're working on it. We've created the Teahouse, which aims to help new editors in a way that is more friendly (and sometimes even less incendiary) than the help desk. Like you said, we've lost a lot of editors (particularly content contributors) to the deletionist wave. But we also lose a lot more, new and old, to the excitement of our community.

I don't see why one should assume that an AfD is based on opinion and IDONTLIKEIT when the nominator shows an attempt at finding sources. Personal remarks and a history of Wikipedia are much more fitted on a user's talk page than on an AfD. A simple explanation of why the article should be kept, with links to sources you've found, gets the point across in a simple and effective way. AfDs can be malicious and personal, but this one was not. You're not defending against seasoned deletionists, but a new editor. Labeling some quality control volunteers as "functionally illiterate" is not a message I, or a new editor, would want to receive.

If I had to choose, I tend to side on the side of inclusionism, and I know how frustrating and moral-busting AfDs can be - but rarely is it in bad faith. Even the most veteran editors make "bad" nominations. I agree that urging editors to dive into content addition is great; I do not think discouraging copy editing is good. New editors work where they're comfortable in, and the "comfort zone" tends to be things like copy editing, vandalism patrol, and page tagging. Those are still important functions that shouldn't be discouraged in lieu of content creation. Rather, content creation should simply be encouraged, and is a place that many new editors will shift to naturally as they gain experience.

It's incredibly easy for someone to put their pen down from a volunteer project from discouragement; it's much harder to retain them. If you want a new editor to focus on improving articles rather than nominating them for deletion, there are much better approaches. Rimmel.Edits clearly put some work into finding sources; why not provide guidance on how to find more, better sources? Suggestions and links to a variety of search tools you've found helpful in the past would go a lot further than discouraging other types of editing.

I respect the work you do, the number of articles you've created, and the work you continue to put into improving them. In the coming weeks, I'll be working with fellow students to introduce to them to editing Wikipedia. I'll certainly keep in mind your thoughts on what editors should focus on, and that article rescue is preferred over article deletion. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs

@SuperHamster:
  1. Yes, it is easy for new and promising contributors to get discouraged, when they get some initial criticism, and even easier if they are bullied. There are too many administrators who bully new contributors. We are probably in agreement on this.
  2. How often are lapses from WP:BEFORE basically instances of WP:IDONTLIKEIT?

    Are you familiar with the outside comments, and outside criticism the wikipedia received over the speedy deletion of a stub article on The Political Quarterly?

    Dick Pountain, the guy who started it, was not a regular wikipedia contributor. Rather he wrote a column in technical magazine in the UK. We are going back a few years ago now, and tech columnist were less likely to be aware of the wikipedia's internal problems, and thus to praise it as a brilliant example of crowd-sourcing. But a friend of his, who had actually experimented with writing for the wikipedia, gave him a warning and a dare. His friend told him that many of the wikipedia's quality control volunteers were wildly overconfident bullies -- and he dared Pountain to try and write an article.

    The beginning of the story can be read at Talk:The Political Quarterly. It is embarrassing. I am with Pountain, on this one. It shocks me to think a high school graduate wouldn't recognize the names of Leon Trotsky and Benito Mussolini. Yet those involved in deleting the article didn't recognize the names.

    Promising articles on important topics are deleted all the time, maybe even on an hourly basis, by overconfident quality control volunteers who either can't or won't comply with WP:BEFORE, or whose efforts are deeply inadequate. Your protege's efforts to comply with WP:BEFORE? They weren't just mildly inadequate, a "good effort", they were deeply inadequate. I barely scratched the surface. There is so much commentary on McElwee and Bright Leaves, that a contributor who really knew about film history, who was prepared to spend a day or two, could expand it ten fold and get it listed on the good article list.

    Anyhow, with regard to WP:IDONTLIKEIT, I think that when our quality control volunteers come to a very weak article on a notable topic they are personally interested in, they don't try and delete it, either because they already know the topic is notable, or because it related to things they are interested in, they do go to the trouble of doing enough web searches to recognize the topic's notability. So THOSE articles are safe from deletion. The articles that are vulnerable are the notable articles on topics the quality control volunteers AREN'T interested in. Hence IDONTLIKEIT.

  3. Did I come down too hard on your protege? Let me tell you the stories of two other contributors.
Years ago I encountered a prolific contributor, who had not created a wiki-ID, who jumped from IP address to IP address. I was concerned that he was trying to evade responsibility for his edits, and said so.
He admonished me for failing to read the note he had put at the top of talk page for the IP address he was currently using. He put notes on the talk pages of the IP addresses he used, explaining that he had serious mental health issues, and that he found contributing to the wikpedia very therapeutic. But he didn't find the criticism and discussion part of the project were good for his mental health -- hence the shifting IPs. I saw he had a couple of long term contributors, who were fans of his, who were familiar enough with his writing style that, they could recognize him, merely from his style, and who would leave a welcome on his most recent IP number's talk page.
In my reply I expressed some sympathy for his (unstated) mental health issues. I told him very few of us could claim 100 percent mental health. I suggested though, that the highest priority of our contributions to the wikipedia should be improving the wikipedia. I suggested other benefits, like (1) it improves my writing ability; (2) it improves my mental health; (3) it will look good on my resume -- these all have to be secondary benefits, that we can't let interfere with our primary goal.
I can't really remember what advice I gave him. I'd like to think I phrased it as nicely as possible. I may have said that, so long as he could contribute to the wikipedia, in a way that helped rebuild his mental health -- and wasn't compromising the wikipedia's quality, I thought he should feel welcome. In this I suggested my expectations of him weren't any different than my expectations of any wikipedia contributor. A wikipedia contributor who had just come home from a bender was (temporarily) incompetent, and they should take a break, until they are sober again.
I quickly forgot about this guy. But I must have been thoughtful, or helpful, because a year, or maybe a year and a half later, he left a thank you note on my page, telling me he had really thought hard about what I had said, and, with a year's perspective on it, he thought it was extremely good advice. He had created a new wiki-id. And he was trying to only contribute where the wikipedia came first, and the benefits to his mental health second.
The other contributor was someone who had been prolific here, and a minor contributor on the commons. I first became aware of him on the commons, where he was engaging in truly outrageous vandalism.
He was apparently a very gifted photographer, bird watcher, and photographer of butterflies. He had submitted some really fine photos to the English wikipedia, that he wanted to be judged by those who judge some kind of best new wikipedia image of the month. However, because of his images high quality, they had already been copied to the commons. This made them ineligible for the wikipedia image contest. When he went to the commons and requested deletion, he was told that while commons does sometimes delete properly licensed images -- as a courtesy -- this courtesy deletion was never done when they were already in use.
This is where the vandalism began. He went to every wiki that was using his images in its articles, and he erased "his" images from those articles. Apparently he thought that, since his images were no longer being used on those other wikis the images now qualified for courtesy deletion. No. I am not making this up.
He had fans, who tried to intercede on his behalf, who claimed he should be given special treatment, due to being (1) well-meaning; (2) a 14 year old boy genius.
Well, we have the OTRS team to confidentially, and reliably conduct correpsondence. I didn't think we should cut this vandal any breaks, based on the assumption he was a 14 year old boy genius, until he corresponded with a member of the OTRS team, and proved he was 14 years old.
Some other contributors piped up, and said "I participated fully here, when I was still, technically, a minor." I was a reasonably bright 14 year old. I think I could have participated here with enough maturity that no one would guess I was still a minor, or, if they did suspect, they wouldn't mind, because I conducted myself with grace and maturity.
The vandalism this individual carried out on the commons, and the non-English wikis, was dwarfed by the probably well-intentioned, but totally incompetently carried out quality control efforts they conducted here on en.wiki. They had been closing AFCs, had closed 972 of them. When experienced contributors reviewed some of their closures, they determined that the individual's understanding of our policies was both very limited, and often completely mistaken. So their rulings were no more accurate than rolling dice.
972 bad AFC closures? I figured it would take several lifetimes for this individual to make up for the hundreds of WP:BITEs they had dished out.
They got to get their images deleted from the commons, on the grounds that, as a 14 year old, they weren't legally competent to give away any of their IP rights.
What does this imply for your protege? First, while it is great when working on the wikipedia is not just entertaining, but provides an educational benefit to the contributor, the project's interests have to come first.
I want to be able to expect that every person who initiates an AFD has made a thorough effort to comply with WP:BEFORE. This unwillingness or inability to comply with WP:BEFORE is massively, massively damaging.
I am glad that in your experience of participating in deletion discussions you have generally found other participants trying to operate on a good faith basis. That is not my experience.
With regard to whether your protege, and other new contributors, should be discouraged from copy-editing, in favor of new content creation, when they feel confident with copy-editing. Copy-editing is important, so long as it is competently done. Your protege, however, had edged into nominating articles for deletion -- something they just didn't do competently.
There are, I believe, enough good quality references that the article on Bright Leaves could have been improved to Good Quality status, so your protege did not make just a minor mistake.
One of the most terrible problems the project faces is the huge surfeit of quality control volunteers who genuinely think they are making a positive contribution, who feel productive, because they can point to a their ! votes, where they think they fought cruft, but who aren't helping the wikipedia, at all, because they don't make the effort to actually read the articles in question, don't read the article's references, don't do their own web search to reach their own informed opinion on the notability of the topic of the article.
The more the lazy quality control volunteers, who don't comply with WP:BEFORE, are allowed free rein, the more biased the wikipedia becomes, as the AFDs they dominate aren't considering the genuine notability of the topics of these articles. Rather, since they count on the pre-existing sum of general knowledge their ! votes are actually votes, that reflect their prejudices and cultural biases. Geo Swan (talk) 17:42, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nice write-up with some good points. I enjoyed the examples of past stories. But in the end, I'm still left wondering how that applies to this situation. You mention that, from your experience, you have found participants to not operate on good basis - but how does that relate here? Is there any indication that the nomination was in bad faith? What does people racking up !vote counts have to do with this? We're discussing a new editor who clearly hasn't had much experience with AfD, and Wikipedia at-large. Assuming that the nomination was not in good faith, for an ulterior motive, or not for the good of the project first is completely ignoring good faith. The issue here is simply a lack of experience.
My point is: I totally agree that WP:BEFORE is a vital process, and that it needs to be done for every nomination. When BEFORE is ignored, we end up with excessive discussions and the potential deletion of valid subjects from what you call quality control. But we're discussing a new editor. Yes, the nomination was a particularly bad one. Why not apply the principles of WP:BITE and provide a friendly approach? Why not take that time and put it to actually helping editors develop? You keep mentioning how BEFORE is a vital process - yet in the 600+ words you left our nominator, not once did you even mention BEFORE.
Take a look at Schmidt's 4-sentence message for our nominator:
  • A link to BEFORE, and a call for better pro-active searches for sources.
  • An example of sources that indicate notability.
  • A notice that the "find sources" template isn't always the best.
  • A recommendation for a withdrawal of the AfD.
I'm sure our nominator learned a lot more about AfD and BEFORE from Schmidt's message, in a lot less bitey manner. My point is - you can achieve the same effect of ensuring quality AfD nominations and curbing ignorant "quality control" in a way that is constructive, friendly, and a lot less likely to discourage new contributors. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 01:38, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

August 2015[edit]

Another contributor started what seemed to me a frivolous AFD. They left a questionable complaint that my comment in that AFD lapsed from CIVIL, something I disputed. I left them my best good faith advice. I think it is clear that they aren't going to take any good faith advice at face value. I am not removing their comments from my talk page. But I think their complaints are baseless, so I am enclosing them in a {{hidden}}. Geo Swan (talk) 16:00, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Information icon Hello, I'm WilliamJE. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2021 World Championships in Athletics that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia needs people like you and me to collaborate, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. WP:CIVIL reads-

1. Direct rudeness 

   (a) rudeness, insults, name-calling', gross profanity or indecent suggestions  ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:14, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Information icon Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:44, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use File:Quarterbacks Angela Rypien and Mark Rypien.png[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Quarterbacks Angela Rypien and Mark Rypien.png. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the file description page and add the text {{di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
  2. On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 05:52, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's true both subjects are still living. But this photo cannot be replaced by freely-licensed alternatives. In particular, this unique image was directly discussed in the text of the article from which I acquired it.

Rypien was the closest thing the "Lingerie Football League", later the "Legends Football League" had to a star. Near as I could tell 99 percent of the games players were volunteers, for whom the only remunerations they may have received were for the occasional appearance, at malls, etc. They all had to keep their day jobs. Rypien's own skill, and her family ties to a legend from men's football, enabled her to acquire enough endorsement deals that she could support herself without needing to keep her day job.

The League seems to have had a troubled history, and may never play another game. So this historic photo, showing two family members from different football leagues, both wearing clothes appropriate for playing football, is extremely unlikely to ever be duplicated, much less duplicated under a free license.

I looked, at the time I uploaded this image, and couldn't find any free images. Geo Swan (talk) 15:24, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 31[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Stan Honda, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Occupation of Iraq. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:28, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Geo_Swan/archive/2015-08&oldid=803480015"