|
With all the talk about about "vital" articles and the importance of those with high page views I thought I'd look at the stats for Maggie. Would you believe 351,090 last month?[1]
- Wow, that is a lot. I wonder why there was such a huge surge mid-month? --John (talk) 19:16, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Might have something to do with the new film, The Iron Lady, in which Meryl Streep plays Maggie? Malleus Fatuorum 19:34, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, that makes sense. I didn't know about that film, it looks interesting. --John (talk) 20:12, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop removing the paragraph entitled "Rivals" in this article. This section is highly relevant to the club. Other clubs have similar sections - e.g. Motherwell, and other articles about clubs mention rivals (e.g. Rangers) - are you going to wade in and delete those too?
Your deletion makes no mention of the reasons why you are doing so - at the very least that is discourteous to the contributors who have spent time on this article. Would you like me and /or others to start deleting sections you have written without explanation?
Please therefore refrain from continuing to delete this section.
Centre Stand (talk) 18:26, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry my last removal had a garbled edit summary. Like everything on Wikipedia, the material needs to be verifiable. Any material that is not referenced may be removed by any user. If you want me to stop removing it, your best bet would be to provide reliable sources for it. otherwise there is no place for it here. Hope that makes sense. --John (talk) 20:11, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- But on reflection, I kept the section with a tag. You can have a week or so to find sources before I remove it again. I did the same at Motherwell FC. The Rangers article is an example of good practice; see how the rivalries section has quite a lot of references; that's what you are aiming for. Good luck. --John (talk) 20:58, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The amendments and corrections you have made to the article recently are to be welcomed, but I think you are picking hairs on the above. Whilst you are following the Wikipedia Rule Book I think you are being pedantic, as especially this information is widely known amongst Airdrie and indeed other Scottish football supporters. Seriously - if you are interested in Scottish football you surely would know this without referring to any source!!
- It is common knowledge amongst the Airdrie support that their main rival is Motherwell - based on geography, tradition and the entry for The Lanarkshire Derby (in Wikipedia). Would you take an opinion poll of the Rangers supporters to determine their biggest rival, or the Hearts supporters, or Morton supporters, or Sheffield United, or West Ham? It is the same thing - and I can give you the answer to each one of those teams without the need for any verification - it's common knowledge and in the public domain!
- However, further evidence to support this can be found linked to football supporters rivalries under "Lanarkshire Derby" and in particular "Section B" article (newspaper references for Motherwell, Ayr Utd, St. Mirren, Albion Rovers - infact all the teams mentioned). So to satisfy you though surely these newspaper articles another contributor referenced under "Section B" article could be used for all of the above teams mentioned in the Rivals section - I am not trying to be awkward but not being very techy why don't you bring these across from that article and use them too? This would provide sufficient references for a credible section.
- Centre Stand (talk) 21:31, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Common knowledge" doesn't cut it I'm afraid. We need reliable sources. Feel free to add them if they are decent and say what you say they say. --John (talk) 21:33, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- So you want me to prepare the multiple choice sheet for the next home game then? Know wonder people give up on Wikipedia - the churn rate must be phenomenal of the no. of contributors who get brassed off by it! OK I will be polite - there are newspaper references contained at the foot of the "Section B" article that refer to rivalry & animosity with all the clubs mentioned in that Rivals section. I notice you have contributed/tidied up "Section B" recently - are you able to use these references too and just add them to the Rivals section in the article? Like I said I am not technically minded (no I am not being awkward) - you made a good job already tidying both articles up - please bring the references over to the Rivals section and we'll have a solution!
- Centre Stand (talk) 21:49, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Since you asked me so nicely, I will take a look at the references from the other article and see if they support the claims. It isn't all that technical to do this but ok. Normally, the onus is on the editor wishing to add or retain material to do this. I am sorry if you find this irksome, but I am sure you can see what dreadful crap the articles would turn into if we did not insist on reliable third-party sources for the material we publish. --John (talk) 21:55, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough - I think the references in the "Section B" article stand up to support claims of rivalry between Airdrie and Motherwell, Albion Rovers, Ayr Utd, St. Mirren and Partick Thistle. Apologies that I cannot do this at the moment - thanks for your help.
- Centre Stand (talk) 22:03, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No worries. I'll look in the next few days. --John (talk) 22:06, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry this took me a wee while. Having reviewed the sources on the other article, I cannot see any way to justify the Rivals section on the Airdrie FC article by using them. Unless better references can be found, it looks like the material will have to be removed. This one reference that I can find would not be enough in itself to justify the material, and this Google search does not look all that promising either. Do you have anything better? Not everything we know to be true is suitable for Wikipedia, I am afraid. --John (talk) 00:51, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, since you participated in the failed FAC of the AV-8B, I'd like to ask you to participate in the article's MILHIST ACR at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/McDonnell Douglas AV-8B Harrier II. Thank you --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 23:55, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll be happy to have a look. Thanks for asking. --John (talk) 00:33, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can you apply a cluestick to the person adding copyrighted text to this article? It's getting a bit old. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:46, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I had a word and will block if they do it again. Thanks for letting me know. --John (talk) 18:50, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- thanks. I'm willing to be AGF and all once but... after that, it's just distracting.. that's what we pay you admins the big bucks for, right? Ealdgyth - Talk 19:18, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That's right, if I don't threaten to block some poor sap at least once a month, they take away my special badge and parking space. --John (talk) 19:24, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nice attempt to get him working with the project, but I don't think it will get anywhere. His first language is German and he's indefinitely blocked from there with a translated reason of "No desire for encyclopaedic employees identified". That's a bit garbled, but seems to indicate no desire to work with other contributors. So, out of your options, I think getting somebody here to mentor him is the one with the best chance of working. --GraemeL (talk) 13:08, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, that is interesting. I thought he might be German from the user name but didn't like to assume. I have a smattering, but don't really have a lot of time to put into this. --John (talk) 17:02, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've blocked him for a week, specifically for adding insults about other editors as comments in the markup here. I came very close to just making it indef. --GraemeL (talk) 18:24, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Just noticed your crosspost on his talk page. good call. --GraemeL (talk) 18:26, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please block the user as he restored his edits after the last warning. Thank you. Oda Mari (talk) 18:20, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- See section above. --GraemeL (talk) 18:25, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I agree that was unacceptable and I have extended the block to indefinite per my recent warning. I hope that is ok with you, Graeme. As always, indefinite does not need to mean for ever. --John (talk) 18:27, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yup, no objections, I came very close to making my initial block indefinite. If he comes back with an agreement to accept mentoring and cooperate with other editors, then would would have to reconsider. Otherwise, things will go smoother without the edit wars. --GraemeL (talk) 18:32, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just as background information: "No discernible intent of encyclopedic collaboration" is probably the most common block reason at the German Wikipedia and tends to be used rather quickly. (In this case after three edits.) His edits in German were not better than those here. He even left his email address on the article. Clearly at least a borderline medical problem. Hans Adler 14:09, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you, that is interesting background. --John (talk) 19:42, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is a bit of a anal request but I'm wondering if you could expand your edit summarys. Its Just Copy edit dosent really explain the removal of content on the school articles. I totally understand why you are doing it but on first glance it just looks like removal of content. Edinburgh Wanderer 22:14, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair point. To be honest I was trying to be polite. An honest summary would probably read something like Removed non-notable promotional garbage, completely unreferenced and probably (badly) written by students or staff of the school. But I will try to aim for something in between. --John (talk) 22:17, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Some of them are quite bad. Your doing a good job. The majority are a bit of a mess which is a shame because they could be good. Edinburgh Wanderer 22:20, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you, it was a good comment. --John (talk) 22:49, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Your doing a good job." You're boy, you're! Write it out 1,000 times and hand it in to me tomorrow morning. --GraemeL (talk) 22:57, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's long been a matter of wonder to me why so few schools have even quarter-decent articles, even the English grammar schools and those who consider themselves to be language academies. Malleus Fatuorum 23:52, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't find it at all surprising that the majority of school articles are poor. For starters the people most likely to edit them are the people who go to that school. Though they may well be computer literate, they'll be looking to kill time hence the majority of such edits are vandalism. When you do get someone genuinely interested in the article, sourcing is a rarity because you're not taught in school to state where you've got your information from. Then there's the sources themselves. Where would you find information on a school's history? Very few are notable enough for people to put together histories, and the few I have seen have been by the school's history teachers so they might not be easy to track down. From say the last 10 years you might have online newspaper archives, but what makes it into the local paper isn't always what should appear in an article (take a look at the talk page of Audenshaw School for example) and some important stuff won't make it into the papers. I doubt local newspapers would include information on changes in teaching at a school, say the introduction of a new subject at GCSE. Newsletters may help, but the odds of finding a stack of them to cover the school's whole history are slim. Ofsted reports are the best sources available, but I've not seen any online from before 2006 (though I can't say I've looked very hard). It just looks to me like the odds are that decent articles on schools, regardless of their background, are always going to be a rarity. Nev1 (talk) 18:50, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- OFSTED for England and Wales, and HMIE for Scotland. One other problem I've seen is listings of subjects taught, which tends to be exactly the same for almost every school. It is not to my mind notable that School X presents students for English, Maths, History, Biology etc, because these are the subjects all schools teach at this level. That, and the self-promotional cruft, the lack of references and the over-detailed descriptions of the school football team's results or the name of the teacher who takes kids on trips... I wouldn't exactly call it vandalism as it was doubtless well-intentioned, but it needs as a minimum to conform to WP:V.--John (talk) 19:00, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've finished all the Edinburgh ones. Royal High School, Edinburgh is the only half-decent one. The rest could just redirect to the education authority if it was up to me. It isn't, of course. --John (talk) 00:30, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If I ruled Wikipedia things would so different it would make your eyes water. :-) Malleus Fatuorum 00:31, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- All right, I'll bite. Top five items on your wishlist would be? --John (talk) 00:36, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- In no particular order: Dump WP:CIVILITY; no administrators; close down WP:WQA; enforce a properly written WP:NPA; unbundle the administrator tools. Malleus Fatuorum 00:58, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I see a tension between losing WP:CIV (I agree with you that it has become useless) and enforcing NPA; the latter is just a brightline case of the former. Also, when you unbundle the admin tools (and again I am not necesarily against that), how do you choose who to give the big ones (blocking and deletion) to? Anybody? Autoconfirmed users? I agree that WQA is rubbish; I have never seen it achieve anything whatsoever. I have long held the opinion that WQA and its big brother AN/I only achieve one thing; they entrap loonies in a place where they generally cannot damage actual articles, at least as long as they are tied up there. --John (talk) 01:06, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- My question to you would be who in their right mind would want to have the blocking tool? Some obviously need to have it, but it ought not to be those who want it. I wish I could remember the name of the Native American tribe who chose their chief on the basis of who least wanted the job. Malleus Fatuorum 01:13, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, we're both anarchists it's safe to say. The paradox is, even anarchists need some kind of enforcement sometimes. Maybe I am getting more pro-establishment as I grow older, partly as a result of having spent time in many different places (including the Internet) where enforcement is more or less effective, and so have come to attach more value to decent enforcement. I don't think anybody in their right mind would want to just have the blocking right. I block very seldom these days; see the section above for a (very sad) case where blocking was the only way forwards and I think I made the right call to indef him. I see it like driving; I don't particularly enjoy driving a car, but if one needs to make a car journey I would rather be the driver than a passenger, as I trust my own driving better than most people's. This, no doubt, is because I am an egotist. --John (talk) 01:24, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
John. Thank you for your excellent contribution. I kept it in (after a quick ce on the parentheses) as I like your phrase very much. "Ely" or more pedantically (Old English) "Ēl-gē" means "eel region" and I am hoping your derived sticks. It makes sense to me. Thank you once again --Senra (Talk) 13:55, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You're very welcome. It was the most surprising thing (to me) on reading the excellent article, and I thought it deserved a place in the lead. --John (talk) 13:59, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that is very generous of you. --John (talk) 07:52, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
GOCE newsletter
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 10:50, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
|
