User talk:SoWhy

about // talk // contributions // barnstars // essays // drafts

SOWHY's talk page

about // talk // contributions // barnstars // essays // drafts

Click here to leave a message.

Messages on this talk page are archived after 1 week.

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 // Index

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/2010 ArbCom election voting procedure

You are invited to participate in the Wikipedia:Requests for comment/2010 ArbCom election voting procedure which is expected to close in a little over a week. If you have received this message, it is because it appears that you participated in the 2009 AC RfC, and your contributions indicate that you are currently active on Wikipedia. Ncmvocalist (talk) 26 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 November 2010

• News and notes: Foundation's finances, geodata milestone, interim counsel, museum conference

• In the news: Airplane construction with Wikipedia, lessons from the strategy project, logic over rhetoric

• WikiProject report: Scoring with WikiProject Ice Hockey

• Features and admins: Good-lookin' slugs and snails

• Arbitration report: Arb resignation during plagiarism discussion; election RfC closing in 2 days

• Technology report: Foundation office switches to closed source, secure browsing, brief news

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 04:47, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Victory for Bureaucracy

The first MfDs for articles that have already been deleted once have begun: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Habibi Silsila. I still don't understand how anyone doesn't think this is process for the sake of process. Gigs (talk) 03:49, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

If you did, you would not hold an opposing viewpoint, would you? The question you should ask instead is this: Is anyone forced to participate in that MFD? Your argument is based on the fact that articles in the incubator were deleted once but that's not true, is it? The consensus was to incubate them, not delete them, so deleting requires a consensus that says "delete". Also, incubation is not necessarily only the result of an AFD. Per WP:AI#How it works #1, incubation can happen also in reaction to speedy deletion, userfication and even at some user's discretion. For those cases, your argument is void. Regards SoWhy 09:20, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

In many cases there were no clear consensus to incubate them, it's very often a unilateral action, as you noted. Most of the incubated articles at MfD did show a clear consensus to delete at AfD previously, and the closing admin decided to incubate instead. Regarding speedy deletion candidates... if an article was an A7, and hasn't changed substantially, I don't see why we should have a full deletion debate on it, it's still an A7, it's just an A7 deferred in my mind.

The reason I approached you particularly about this is because I do respect you as an editor who is reasonable and not an extremist. I feel like what should have been a simple matter of documenting an existing process was co-opted and steamrolled by people who fundamentally disagree with WP:N and it's become a referendum on various unrelated things.

I'm afraid that this sort of thing will wind up destroying the incubator in the end, or at least severely limiting its growth. I don't think there is consensus to create a deletionpedia junkyard, and if the incubator becomes this, it will be killed. On the same token, the existing process of administrative discretion deletions is likewise dangerous to the future of the incubator. I had hoped that a documented deletion process could be developed that would be sustainable, not add another layer of bureaucracy, and not be viewed as an end-run around notability and CSDs like A7. Gigs (talk) 16:40, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

The problem, as I see it, was probably with the whole idea to integrate the deletion into CSD. It simply does not belong there. Unfortunately, it's not as easy to determine where it should belong. As I pointed out above, there are multiple ways for an article to be incubated and as such the deletion of pages in the incubator needs to varied based on the reason why it was incubated in the first place:

Incubated after an AFD closed as "delete"

Here the AFD itself is reason for deletion if no further work happened

Incubated after an AFD closed as "incubate"

Here a new discussion is required imho because "incubate" does not necessarily mean "delete"

Incubated instead of speedy deleted

Here a new discussion should be held because the fact that someone incubated the article indicates that deletion might have been controversial, thus not being a good candidate for speedy deletion

Incubated after userfication

Here the decision should be based on the reason for userfication but re-userfying might be the preferable alternative to deletion

Incubated by some user's decision

Here a discussion should always be required.

As you can see, there are too many different possible scenarios to be able to create a speedy deletion criterion, which probably explains the rejection of the G13-proposal and the "steamrolling" you described. Personally, I don't agree that keeping articles in the incubator will circumvent WP:N in any way, because all those pages are NOINDEXed and thus are outside the public's view (and thus not a WP:N question anymore) but probably the best way forward in this case would be a RFC about the deletion process for incubator articles. Before starting such a RFC though, one should consider a good argument why MFD would not work. Regards SoWhy 17:16, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I think you do have a good start up there. G4 for ones that had an AfD that had a pretty good consensus for deletion, but someone said "hold on let me try to fix it". I disagree on your third point... If it would have fell into the speedy deletion criteria, an objection doesn't necessarily render that speedy moot... after all nearly every author of an A7 objects to the deletion, whether they say something about it or not. Incubation is then just a sort of extended {{hangon}}, wouldn't you say? Just like with the hangon template, if the article clearly falls into the deletion criteria, then the objection doesn't prevent the speedy. Gigs (talk) 18:14, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

That objection only applies if the article was incubated by the creator. I think we can both agree that most new users have no idea what the incubator is, so it's quite likely that most of those incubations were made by experienced users who disagreed that the subject should be deleted. And I think there is a rough consensus that speedy deletion should not be used in those cases where one or more users (except the creator) feel that the article should not be speedy deleted. Regards SoWhy 18:22, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Legion XIIX

Hey,

Regarding this edit of yours: The eighteenth legion was indeed spelled XIIX, not XVIII, in contemporary inscriptions. I don't know how familiar you are with Latin, but the Romans did not always adhere to the same rules we learned, and in addition, many contemporary inscriptions and documents are full of errors even when one applies the "standards" of that time. In the case of legion XIIX, it was however not an error, but the deliberate, common spelling of the legion's name, and it appears that it is used that way in modern secondary literature, too ((quick books.google search). I therefore think the spelling "XIIX" should be restored. Regards Skäpperöd (talk) 06:26, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi there. I'm not really familiar with Latin (anymore) but I did notice that our article on this legion is called Legio XVIII and not Legio XIIX, so my edit was made to have the same name everywhere. It might have been a common spelling but the question is whether it's the common name for this legion. You will notice that "legio xiix" yields three results on GBooks while "legio xviii" yields 113 results, so you would have to first show that XIIX should be used instead of XVIII. Anyway, that's something for discussion, not for me to decide and my edit was (as I said above) only for the sake of consistency. Regards SoWhy 07:19, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Hey, I searched for an English source listing different spellings, and came across this snippet listing a few, if you are interested. I have updated the article "legio xviii" accordingly, maybe the clades variana article should have the alt spelling somewhere, too. I won't insist on changing xviii to xiix all along anymore, since when I looked it up I came across inscriptions which really spell it xviii instead of xiix, and your argument about use in secondary literature is convincing, too. Regards Skäpperöd (talk) 07:58, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Is [1] fine with you? Skäpperöd (talk) 08:24, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Sure. I also created a redirect at Legio XIIX. Regards SoWhy 09:38, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 8 November 2010

• Fundraiser: November 15 launch, emphasis on banner optimization and community involvement

• News and notes: Second Wikipedian in Residence, {{citation needed}} for sanity

• In the news: WP prose praised, Public Policy update, education debate, WP documentary

• WikiProject report: WikiProject California

• Features and admins: No, not science fiction—real science

• Election report: The countdown begins

• Arbitration report: No cases this week; Date delinking sanctions reduced for one party; History ban extended

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

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 17:38, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 November 2010

• News and notes: Fundraisers start for Wikipedia and Citizendium; controversial content and leadership

• In the news: How big can Wikipedia pictures get?; fundraising season

• WikiProject report: Sizzling: WikiProject Bacon

• Features and admins: Of lakes and mountains

• Dispatches: A guide to the Good Article Review Process

• Arbitration report: No cases this week; Amendments filed on Climate Change and Date Delinking; Motion passed on EEML

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

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:27, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

please help

Dear SoWhy, I am kindly asking for your attention to FlexiScore matter... I am really upset over the situation the term that does not conflict with any other terms is currently in. The users are basing their decision on the fast that there is no information on google to back flexiscore term - but do all theories have to be axioms?. Thank you for your attention... Ednoror (talk) 01:26, 19 November 2010 (UTC)