User talk:Dr. Blofeld: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 08:20, 2 October 2015

Template:Reducing workload I think the time is going to come by the end of the year that I really will no longer be able to commit much time to wikipedia. It's a time sink, and with the current attitude towards editors on here, pretty unreasonable. In the meantime I will still work on a few core articles (like Frank Sinatra) but my days of prolific content building on here are over and I will try to restrict how much time I spend on here daily. So this notice is to say "I'm still here, I will commit to a few articles, but I'm going to be far less active in producing content here than I once was".♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:51, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dr. Blofeld/nav

Lakes of Nova Scotia

I'm sorry to see that you are easing off on your phenomenal contributions to Wikipedia. However, I do have reservations about some of your earlier work such as Big Mushamush Lake and most of the similar artilces linked from List of lakes of Nova Scotia and plan to propose that they are deleted, or possibly redirected. They don't seem to meet WP:GEOLAND "Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist. This includes mountains, lakes, streams, islands, etc." and from your essay Encyclopedia problems I rather think you might now agree with my assessment. It makes me sad to trash such a huge amount of work, but few of these pages as far as I have checked, have developed beyond your initial stub. Rather, they are fodder for the occasional vandal, which then takes effort to revert, or some minor housekeeping tweek, again effort that could perhaps be better directed.

So, pending your comments, my plan is to send one of these stubs to AfD as a test case to gain consensus, with a comment that if deleted I plan to PROD all the others with similar content, unless someone can propose a simpler mechanism.

best regards, Derek Andrews (talk) 16:48, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Derek Andrews: Well, those lake stubs are not exactly a "huge amount of work" are they, little time and research went into writing them. You're right on them not being expanded though. most articles don't develop in the way we want, it's left to people like us to expand them. Wikipedia is really not a project with millions of people actively contributing, the bulk of the work is done by a small number. You're welcome to do what you want with them but, as I'm sure Aymatth2 would agree, a fair few number of lakes are going to be notable and might not be straightforward deletions. I think people would argue that Big Musha is notable. A better solution would be to try to improve the larger ones which have a fair amount of material and then delete/redirect the rest.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:54, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly wasn't proposing deleting them all, just the articles that provide no more information than can be gleaned from the location data on the List page. From what I have seen so far, I think it is the larger part of them. I will check them out and if I can find no references to show any notability, I will PROD them. Derek Andrews (talk) 18:27, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Derek Andrews, please don't prod them. Nobody is going to expand them and I'm not going to be drilled 600 prod template warnings OK? Draw up a list of the ones you want deleted and I'll db-author them. At a later date then somebody can recreate an article with proper information if they want to.♦ Dr. Blofeld 06:13, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment. @Derek Andrews: It would be much better (and less effort) to redirect the titles to List of lakes of Nova Scotia than to delete them.

A lot of these mid-sized lakes will have been described in some depth (no pun intended) by reliable sources. Typically a government agency will have studied the water, fish, plants and algae. Often there will be history of logging and mining. An editor with access to the printed sources may decide the lakes deserve articles. They could expand the redirects into real articles. But if they find the articles once existed but were deleted as "not notable", they may think there is a reason why they should not. It takes a lot of confidence to re-create a deleted article. Deletion is likely to hinder growth of the encyclopedia. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:13, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with @Aymatth2: redirect, don't delete. If I had the time, I would work on adding a few sentences to all of those that have RS. #time --Rosiestep (talk) 14:24, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I could go along with that, though I personally don't have any problem reincarnating deleted articles if I have sufficient material, and rather feel that redirects are just waiting for someone to revert them to a stub without taking the effort to expand them in a meaningful way. Thanks Aymatth2 for your edit to Ellen Brown Lake, though my opinion is that data without interpretation is rather meaningless and indiscriminate. It does however make me think that in this instance a redirect to St. Mary's River (Nova Scotia), or an article about its watershed, would be more appropriate and might build into a more meaningful article? No doubt this would work for most of the others too. Derek Andrews (talk) 15:16, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Derek Andrews: The red warning notice on a deleted article is forbidding. A new editor may not realize "notable" is insider jargon. They could agree the lakes are nothing special and drop their plan for a series based on all those printed sources from their years in the Ministry. I added what little I could find online about Ellen Brown Lake. Location and water quality are highly relevant, not indiscriminate information. Area, depth, fauna and flora would also be nice. The source I added seems typical of the papers agencies and academics will have been issuing for years. I expect there is much more offline. This should be discussed on a project page. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:23, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Ellen Brown Lake

The article Ellen Brown Lake has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No indication of notability.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Derek Andrews (talk) 18:44, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Derek Andrews Please don't start a prod campaign and drill me hundreds of generic prod messages. I don't do prods. Go through the category, find the lakes you think are not worthy of articles and create a list and take them to AFD.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:48, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Maple Lake (Pictou)

The article Maple Lake (Pictou) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No indication of notability WP:GEOLAND

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Derek Andrews (talk) 18:57, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

September 2015

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Frank Sinatra may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

most fascinating man in the world, but don't put your hand in the cage".{{sfn|Kelley|1986|p=71}}} Sinatra later said of his reason for the departure: "The reason I wanted to leave Tommy's band was
Bureau of Investigation]] kept records amounting to 2,403 pages on Sinatra. With his alleged Mafia]] ties, his ardent [[New Deal]] politics and his friendship with [[John F. Kennedy]], he was a

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:23, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed BracketBot. Thanks. — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 01:37, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nenjil Or Aalayam

Hello, Dr. Blofeld. How are you? This article about a 1962 film is my next GAN and I was wondering if you would be interested in reviewing it. Thamizhan1994 (^{Appo Pesu}) 00:06, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to hear from you! I'll try to do it on the weekend!♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:29, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerda

"If you want to change from infobox to no infobox, try to get consensus for that step on the talk first, please. " Should I also ask permission to expand an article to FA level and try to gain consensus for each edit I make? Should I gain permission for trying to improve the Sinatra article, sourcing it and making it more comprehensive too? After all, the text has been there ten years, so therefore it must be ideal and non editable. Same logic. You're quite absurd. This fetish of yours turns an otherwise pleasant personality into a monster.♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:32, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You confuse "permission" and "consensus", and you missed "please". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:22, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The same thing. Should I ask for consensus each time I want to remove an unsourced paragraph which has been there ten years or add a sourced paragraph? "Please" isn't a ticket for pushy, unreasonable behaviour. And neither does being nice to the likes of Tim riley excuse the level of disruption you cause whenever anybody removes an infobox. Beyond your desire for every article to have an infobox like a uniform, can you not see how ludicrous it is that you're making me feel bad for removing it, when I'm spending a lot of time trying to promote one of our most "core articles" to FA for the centenary which gets 160,000 odd hits a month. Not a word of support or thanks, but pure negativity over a silly little infobox. What matters the most here, what is more important in the grander scheme of things? And coming from one of the people who I thought was most supportive of editor retention, this sort of thing is exactly what makes a lot of us not want to bother promoting articles any longer because we have to deal with infobox zealots who distract people from content.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:49, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blofeld, I know that WP:CALMDOWN has the opposite effect on most people, including me, but we aren't out to get you. I support having the article at FA, but it will get tremendous scrutiny and so it's going to be a challenging haul, regardless. You are doing the right thing to focus on content, and I for one have no concerns with BRD, you don't like someone's edit, just revert and if they have a problem, it can be discussed. Montanabw^(talk) 22:40, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You guys might not be out to get Dr. B, but neither one of you had made a single edit to the Sinatra article until after he removed the infobox (Gerda still hasn't ([1]), and MBW's first edit there was in fact a revert that restored the infobox ([2]). So it seems a little disingenuous to act like this is all about the content there, and it's not an extension of the ongoing Infobox Wars. RO^(talk) 23:03, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Nadia Labidi

On 1 October 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Nadia Labidi, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Algerian filmmaker Nadia Labidi is also a politician who served as Minister of Culture from May 2014 to May 2015? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Nadia Labidi. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:23, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An Oscar video

Just watching this and reminded me of you: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mg1ZFSgQdrU One of the best Oscar acceptance speeches, I think. Cheers. Katastasi and his talk page. 03:01, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How gorgeous was Claire Bloom, seriously, one fine woman.. And how much of sleazebag did Warren Beatty look as a young man LOL.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:05, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 83: / Line 83: @@
 ::Blofeld, I know that [[WP:CALMDOWN]] has the opposite effect on most people, including me, but we aren't out to get you.  I support having the article at FA, but it will get tremendous scrutiny and so it's going to be a challenging haul, regardless. You are doing the right thing to focus on content, and I for one have no concerns with BRD, you don't like someone's edit, just revert and if they have a problem, it can be discussed.  [[User:Montanabw|<font color="006600">Montanabw</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:Montanabw|<font color="purple">(talk)</font>]]</sup> 22:40, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 :::You guys might not be out to get Dr. B, but neither one of you had made a single edit to the Sinatra article until ''after'' he removed the infobox (Gerda still hasn't ([https://tools.wmflabs.org/sigma/usersearch.py?name=Gerda+Arendt&page=Frank+Sinatra&server=enwiki&max=)]), and MBW's first edit there was in fact a revert that restored the infobox ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=683399883]). So it seems a little disingenuous to act like this is all about the content there, and it's not an extension of the ongoing Infobox Wars. [[User:Rationalobserver|<font color="#FE2E9A">RO</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:Rationalobserver|<font color="blue">(talk)</font>]]</sup> 23:03, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
-Whatever the issues, this statement is not acceptable. "This fetish of yours turns an otherwise pleasant personality into a monster."  Nothing gives any of us the right to speak about other editors like this.([[User:Littleolive oil|Littleolive oil]] ([[User talk:Littleolive oil|talk]]) 00:20, 2 October 2015 (UTC))
 ==DYK for Nadia Labidi==