User talk:GiantSnowman

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Prod removals 3[edit]

I don't really see why you keep blanking an active discussion and moving it to an archive, before I've even had a chance to read the response! I assumed you just dropped the issue, but I noticed that you'd actually added a response, and then archived it 2 days later. I don't come into Wikipedia every day ... heck, I don't even come every week!

You wrote "You admitted yourself last time that you didn't fully understand how GNG works - so to challenge a PROD on the basis of GNG is wrong."

Hang on, your twisting what I wrote. I was saying that if Jack Wilshere really wasn't notable despite hundreds of detailed newspaper articles about him, from lots of different countries, in a few different continents, then I don't understand GNG. I didn't say I didn't understand GNG. I was implying that Wilshere was indeed notable, and I was trying to be polite. As this seems to have been lost on you, I'll be clear. Wilshere WAS notable, and you if you think that with hundreds of detailed newspaper articles about him, from lots of different countries, in a few different continents, then you don't understand GNG. I suspect however, that if you sat down and closely examined the many articles were were discussing back then in the DRV you'd agree with me.

I'll readily admit that I have deprodded the occasional article that even I'm not sure meets GNG. However I've deprodded them in good faith because I felt the needed wider discussion before deletion. This does no harm, and surely a wider debate can, and sometimes does, get different opinions than either myself, or the person prodding it would have realised. Sometimes I even vote for deletion of something I've deprodded! You act like I deprod everything. I certainly don't. I haven't even deprodded more than a half-dozen articles this month (is there a tool that let's you count this stuff ... it's hard to track, especially after deletion!). Looking at the recent footy prods [1] I can see that there's ... my gosh, there's currently 132! (good grief!). Your blowing this WAY out of proportion. Please stop, and please try and be civil, and stop assuming bad faith. Nfitz (talk) 17:40, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't "blank" the discussion, I archive it - after 2 or 3 days of no response. That's more than fair enough. All I'm saying is it is very hard to assume good faith when you have shown yourself to constantly and consistently de-prod articles that later get deleted at AFD. Looking at your deleted contributions (something only admins can see) there are 50 edits to deleted articles between 10 February and 22 March. Of them, about 45 are PROD removals of articles that were later deleted! Can you not see why we might consider that a problem? GiantSnowman 16:36, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Uh, I said blank it and move it to an archive. Why would you expect a response after only 2 or 3 days? Who ever would have time to pop in that frequently, particularly during weekdays - and even weekends are tougher now that the temperature is above freezing, football season has finally started. PROD removals before March 24th aren't relevant. We started the first discussion on this on the 21st of March. I agreed late on the 23rd of March to be more discerning. Surely if you think there remains an issue, the test is from the 24th of March to now. I went through most of the prods yesterday, and really hoped to fine one to remove, ... sadly, I couldn't find one that I thought worthy of removal, despite searching various Irish and Azerbaijani sources. (Though the whole question of whether Azerbaijani articles should be deleted is a different issue ... but easy enough to revert in the future if we conclude the league is fully professional, and I hardly think people are going to be lining up to recreate these in the meantime.) Nfitz (talk) 22:36, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Because most editors respond within that timeframe, and if they cannot they normally say so. You did neither so I assumed you were ignoring it. Yes the test is from 24th March to now, hence why I am waiting for the AFD to close as 'delete'. GiantSnowman 11:33, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
FYI, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glen Kamara has closed as delete and I will be raising the matter at AN in due course. GiantSnowman 12:06, 14 April 2014 (UTC)


Hi there GS, AL here,

still at it again even though we presented evidence to the contrary to him on several occasions (the contrary being that if a player is raised in a country and receives youth caps for that country, even if he later switches allegiance he gets both categories), now on Fredy (Portuguese footballer), removed the PORTUGUESE FOOTBALLERS cat just because (please see here

If you need more proof that this guy is MonFrontieres, well i can't present a clearer evidence. Hope your wikibreak is a fruitful one, cheers --AL (talk) 19:13, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

  • First of all, apologizes. But AL, I want know which is the difference between a Portuguese-born/raised foreign and a Portuguese-raised foreign? As you know, Angola has not competitive youth teams. Fredy, like other Portuguese-raised Lusophone African players, wants international opportunities since young age and Portugal offered him in several youth teams. The international spectrum show him other face at senior level, as the difficult to still represent Portugal against the more accessible option of represent Angola and obviously he returned with his original country. If you saw my evolution, in the past when a Portuguese(or another nationalities)-born/raised foreign player changed his football nationality I removed his categories of that nationality (except the categories related to the youth teams of that country), but now I accepted keeping. Only I still do not understand why I keep them in the case of the raises, like Fredy. I want know the importance which categories should be as encompassing in people, even if they are only raises and then return to their original nationalities. Regarding Kolins, I do not want to talk much about that. It's the past and I assure you that was not planned. At the time -before this decade, if I'm not mistaken- I had problem with the password, I do not remember, and made this one. But it was before all this discussion with you, AL. Therefore and to be cleaner, I will keep this user (the other is gone for me) and if the problem is to remove categories, I'll try not to make it (even if it goes against my opinion). But I need collaborate, I know search sources (and now I added them in the references and also in the Edit summary, that didn't knew) when I see lost data or not provided in the articles of things I know, like the Equatorial Guinean people and recently the Canadian soccer players. So, I apologizes to you. I keep learning in Wikipedia, right? I do not do it on purpose.--MonFrontieres (talk) 00:34, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
@Always Learning: @MonFrontieres: hello both - on this particular player, if he holds Portuguese nationality, and has represented them at youth international level, then he should remain in Category:Portuguese footballers even if he now represents a different country (Angola) at senior international level. He has not lost his nationality, has he? GiantSnowman 16:38, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
OK Snowman, I agree, but I hope his article name will be redirect from the current "Fredy (Portuguese footballer)" to "Fredy (Angolan footballer)", because he has 2 things as Portuguese (played in youth teams and lives theme) while he has not 2 but 3 things as Angolan (he born there, his ancestry is Angolan (he's black) and represent the senior team (senior > youth) ).--MonFrontieres (talk) 19:33, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
You need to suggest a WP:RM. GiantSnowman 19:36, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

This week's article for improvement (week 16, 2014)[edit]

Renfair entertainers.jpg

Entertainers at a festival

Hello, GiantSnowman.

The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement's weekly selection:


Previous selections: Lobamba • April Fools' Day

Get involved with the TAFI project! You can...
Posted by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Evad37 (talk) 00:11, 14 April 2014 (UTC) • Opt-out instructions

MOS Flag[edit]

Hi GiantSnowman. Thanks for starting this conversation. Flags in sports have been a distraction from editing for years. So much wasted editor time on this issue, yet the impasse persists. Sadly, a lot of opinion on image usage on Wikipedia seems to disregard studies of how text and image presentation shape learning and aid meaning.

I've been working on athletics content for a long time and I'm glad that sensible and constructive conversations have led to good practice in that topic area. I'm more than happy to help workshop some ideas for footy articles – I think we can do better for readers. SFB 19:10, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Gaston Ramirez[edit]

Hi - your recent edit has left a big error message in the second paragraph. Could you take another look? Thanks. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 19:31, 14 April 2014 (UTC)