User talk:Samuel Blanning: Difference between revisions
→Thoughts on deletions=: reply |
|||
Line 392: | Line 392: | ||
:::: You say deletion does not mean the material was bad, so if it is not bad why delete it? Why not merge it with the main article? why not give us the opportunity to improve it to '''fit''' into wikipedia?--[[User:Thameen|Thameen]] 16:48, 29 October 2006 (UTC) |
:::: You say deletion does not mean the material was bad, so if it is not bad why delete it? Why not merge it with the main article? why not give us the opportunity to improve it to '''fit''' into wikipedia?--[[User:Thameen|Thameen]] 16:48, 29 October 2006 (UTC) |
||
:::::Because Wikipedia requires an encyclopaedia, and an encyclopaedia article is a very specifically-defined thing. Sections 2 through 9 of [[Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not]] explain what material is not suitable for Wikipedia, regardless of merit. Editors do consider the possibility of improving material - if you participate in AfD for any length of time you'll see plenty of 'keep and cleanup/keep and verify/keep and merge' arguments - rather less people willing to actually do the work, though. In this case I don't see what could be done to make the content encyclopaedic, and nor could the AfD participants. --[[User:Samuel Blanning|Sam Blanning]]<sup>[[User talk:Samuel Blanning|(talk)]]</sup> 18:08, 29 October 2006 (UTC) |
:::::Because Wikipedia requires an encyclopaedia, and an encyclopaedia article is a very specifically-defined thing. Sections 2 through 9 of [[Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not]] explain what material is not suitable for Wikipedia, regardless of merit. Editors do consider the possibility of improving material - if you participate in AfD for any length of time you'll see plenty of 'keep and cleanup/keep and verify/keep and merge' arguments - rather less people willing to actually do the work, though. In this case I don't see what could be done to make the content encyclopaedic, and nor could the AfD participants. --[[User:Samuel Blanning|Sam Blanning]]<sup>[[User talk:Samuel Blanning|(talk)]]</sup> 18:08, 29 October 2006 (UTC) |
||
:::::: I did read the [[Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not]] but did not find in it any reason why my lists were removed. Those were high value lists the result of research I did only for wikipedia benefit. You will not find these lists on the net nor in any book as such. How is a list of all birds living in a spicific geographical region not encyclopedic? |
|||
:::::: Lets assume a kid opens wikiedia looking for a bird he saw in his garden in say Jerusalem and he wants to know what is this bird called and more info about its life? Lets imagine a student wanting info about what scorpions live in Israel. what can she do? She will need to see each individual species of scorpoins and check if it lives in Israel, and that will take her ages to accomplish. |
|||
:::::: Aren't ecyclopedias about providing information in an a form easy to collect and refer to? this is what I did. |
|||
:::::: You said that Wiki aims at being as good as Britanica. Does not Britanica has lists of things that share a coom parameter? Britanica is full of lists. |
|||
:::::: I think these lists that you deleted were very informative for any one looking for info on the biodiversity in that geographical region. I was hoping that we will see more lists of species for other areas, not to delete my lists ! --[[User:Thameen|Thameen]] 19:50, 29 October 2006 (UTC) |
|||
== Wikipedia == |
== Wikipedia == |
Revision as of 19:50, 29 October 2006
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Images on episode listsAre fair-use images allowed on episode list pages?? The only thing I asked that because, I am having problems with some users with images on the Pokmeon episode list, like I wrote images idenitfy episodes visually and identify key moments. But this Pokémon Collaborative Project voted on not having images which I wasn't imformed with. I got a commit from a two users liking the idea of images:
The users that are causing this problem is A Man in Black and Ryulong. Some of the iamges have the Fair Use Rationale for the images. Please help me. (Yugigx60 14:37, 2 October 2006 (UTC))
Signpost updated for October 2nd.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:38, 3 October 2006 (UTC) Morlocks closing AfDsI can't fault your logic on ANI, but I've told Parsssseltongue that I don't mind. I still don't, but I have enough respect for you to reckon yours is ok, too. If you want to counteract my advice, his talk page might be a good place to do it. - brenneman {L} 12:18, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Ultima DragonsHey, is there a way to get the old content of the Ultima Dragons page that was deleted, so I can at least work on improving it in my sandbox? The sources that have been mentioned on the AfD page I have been working on tracking down, and it would be nice if I could have the old content so that I could improve it in my sandbox or what have you so as to actually have a good article to show to the Deletion for Review board people. Thanks! -- Wizardry Dragon (Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia) 16:43, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks!As you can see I was fighting a losing battle Re: Iain Lee all day! Thank you for your help! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by CarlosPauloEthetheth (talk • contribs) 18:09, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Ah right-o, didn't know that I am new here! Cheers, CarlosPauloEthetheth 18:13, 4 October 2006 (UTC) Hi Samuel - beware, I believe this user may be a clever hoaxer. Several of his past edits are incorrect or unverifiable, and almost all relate in some way to Iain Lee (including, bizarrely, trying to imply he is a descendant of a North Pole Innuit explorer). Stephenb (Talk) 09:20, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm not a a hoaxer, someone has been using my account! Argh! Help! I think i just switched off the browser and not logged out, so there has been some chaos! CarlosPauloEthetheth 15:29, 5 October 2006 (UTC) A keep is a delete is a keep is a...Doh! Thanks for the AfD note, my mind must be going a mile a minute... or perhaps not. --Deathphoenix ʕ 00:47, 6 October 2006 (UTC) Request for deletionDeletionHello Samuel, someone put the article Where Troy Once Stood on a list requesting deletion. I wonder if this is really necessary. Of course I believe in the article but that is not the only reason why I feel bad about this. What harm can this article do as almost any link and reference to it is deleted anyway. I don't feel like fighting this because it all seem so childish. Antiphus 18:58, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Signpost updated for October 9th.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 17:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC) UndeletionThank you for doing the undeletion. JASpencer 19:00, 10 October 2006 (UTC) hiwell i am new to this and just wanted to know how it worked just leave a message please when you recieve this thanks hiwell i am new to this and just wanted to know how it worked just leave a message please when you recieve this thanks Arejay 03:01, 12 October 2006 (UTC) Wikipedia:Deletion review new daysBadlydrawnjeff has been adding the new (empty) days lately because we've had a number of cases where people have put in requests that didn't get seen for a day or two because the date page was never linked. So, it doesn't hurt to link in the new day automatically. Haven't seen a day yet that didn't get a DRV request sooner or later. Fan-1967 19:42, 12 October 2006 (UTC) AfDHello Samuel, after more than five days of AfD now and with the vote in favour of keeping the article about Where Troy Once Stood I still found the AfD-message on top. Isn't it removed automatically or should editors remove it? Most of the content of the article is removed by someone with respect to soapbox. Could you explain what that means and is it a reason to delete three quarters of an article? Regards, Antiphus 05:18, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Relation rules review...I'm genuinely curious why you feel the modified version of the relationship rules article fails on WP:NOT guidelines. The article is more than a dictionary definition (WP:NOT 1.2), the article is well-cited and keeps to the ideas as presented in the original works (WP:NOT 1.3), the article does not serve as a soapbox for a cause (WP:NOT 1.4), the article is not a mirror to other sites (WP:NOT 1.5), the article is not a blog or a social site (WP:NOT 1.6), the article does not serve as a directory (WP:NOT 1.7), the article is not an indiscriminate collection of information, as all cited sources deal with the topic of rules in relationships and even use the term 'rules' in the original sources (WP:NOT 1.8), and the article does not try to predict the future (WP:NOT 1.9). So why exactly does the Relationship rules article fail these guidelines? Thanks in advance for clarifying. User:kc62301
Mediation policy questionYour opinion regarding whether editing to an article should continue during the mediation process would be appreciated here since there doesn't seem to be a relevant policy. I've also asked two other seasoned mediators for their opinion. Thanks. Antonrojo 22:09, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Signpost updated for October 16th.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 18:12, 17 October 2006 (UTC) Thank youFor placing the coat of arms in the template, also I noticed you took part in the DRV of Pro Wrestling Unplugged, an article I was the nominator of for deletion. I have to say his comment "The people who have endorsed this article's deletion know NOTHING about professional wrestling." made me chuckle considering the amount of effort I've put into the wrestling wikiproject and articles, your reply also made me laugh. –– Lid(Talk) 14:53, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Hello, An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Protecting children's privacy. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Protecting children's privacy/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Protecting children's privacy/Workshop. On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Arbitration Clerk, FloNight 21:13, 18 October 2006 (UTC) s-endz aka turiHi Sam, it's S-Endz of Swami aka Turi here. The turi page was completely vandalised by a user by the name of "Rolln94lac". Check the history and you'll see it. Basically he changed all the information on my page to false information, changed the topic to "homosexuals" and edited the photo. Absolutely juvenile behaviour. Anyway, I returned it back to normal. Any chance I can get the WatchBot or whatever to stop my page being vandalised? Or something of that nature? Let me know
s-endz/turi - my user name on here is Militant3121
OK - thanks Sam. I was referring to the bots that automatically detect vandalism. Thanks for the welcome. Yeah, I only post factual neutral information that can be verified and sourced for the most part. Nothing will be on here that hasn't been formally announced. Militant3121 17:55, 19 October 2006 (UTC) Thanks for your note on the article. My deletion was a matter of process. I don't recall the exact reason for marking, but unfortunately I must leave it as it is. I've got too many other things pending and someone else will have to get to it. Thanks again for your note. --meatclerk 17:54, 20 October 2006 (UTC) La'o Hamutuk deletionAs the top of this page suggests, I left a message for you on my talk page [1] on October 13, in response to a message you wrote there about why La'o Hamutuk was deleted. Could you please respond? Thank you. --Cscheiner 18:39, 22 October 2006 (UTC) Signpost updated for October 23rd.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC) Clint Curtis questionThanks, Sam, I would have said that deleting a cited section of text counts as blanking, but I appreciate the criticism. (And am glad I got it before I hit 3RR). Do you have a second to tell me what my remedies are? I think that edits like this are pretty blatant, particularly given 131.94.55.64's contribution history. Do I really need to request an RFC and a mediation once I hit my three reverts? Thanks, TheronJ 18:27, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Emmalina protected redirectHi I noticed that you protected Emmalina as a redirect. Is this in response to something I did? I created a history for Emmalina per unclosed request of everyone in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Notable YouTube memes. I was waiting for a closure since it seems that this article will be deleted. This way I can revert edit so cited information will not be lost on Wikipedia. Also shouldn't Emmalina be a redirect to Notable YouTube memes since that is her main article? Valoem talk 23:05, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Diane E. Benson on deletion reviewAn editor has asked for a deletion review of Diane E. Benson. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, your reasons on how or why you did so will be greatly appreciated in the above review. Deirdre 03:59, 26 October 2006 (UTC) Hes vandalising my page againDear sam i would like to offically report User gerrado for vandalising my user page he was warned any more attacks and i would report him to an admin so now i am reporting him to you an admin. Please deal apropriatly with gerrado as he is a thorn i thought i had removed please permenantly get him off my case. Thanks --Lucy-marie 12:31, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
VandalismI give you a hand for reverting the vandalism on my user page. THANK YOU! Royalbroil Talk Contrib 19:26, 26 October 2006 (UTC) X. Claire YanIt appears there were 5 votes for "keep" and 5 votes for "delete," and the guidelines say to err on the side of inclusion. How did you come to the decision to delete the article? It seems Wikipedia is just that bit less informative and useful now - the article would only improve - but then again I'm an eventualist. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by HunterAmor (talk • contribs) 05:03, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Stannington First SchoolNo consensus? In a split of merge and delete, I don't think keep is a viable option. Choose one of merge or delete, and go with it. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 18:26, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi, Sorry to bother you, but you were so spot-on with User: Edward Saint-Ivan. The self-promo problem has cropped up again, but with another user--an anon using two IPs. This time I have some personal knowledge--it's a father vandalizing a son's page. Please believe me when I say it's more malicious and disturbing than it looks. The son will not get involved, out of fear of encouraging stalking behavior on the part of the father, to whom he does not speak (father may be encouraged if he thinks this is a form of "contact" with son). That's the subtext--on the face of it, the father/anon has still made a a number of violations--patent nonsense, 3RR, WP:VAIN, etc. He has ignored all of my attempts to get him to discuss anything, or to read any Wiki policies or guidelines. I made a report about him here: [2] but nothing is being done, meanwhile the father continues to "edit" the page... Thanks in advance for any help or advice about how to proceed, Cindery 18:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. I didn't see the 3RR block from William Connelly before I wrote to you. If anon persists after the 24 hr block, and Bio noticeboard can't resolve things, I will take your advice re WP:ANI. (He seems to have used two IPs, on Joshua Clover page, that begin with 71 and vary only in the last four numbers--so maybe it is not a range but just the two numbers?) Anyway, thanks again for your help and advice. Cindery 18:08, 28 October 2006 (UTC) I only nominated that page based on the fact that I read somewhere on here that talk pages needed to be retained if they contained policy violations etc. Your comments straightened it out for me a bit more... SunStarNet; 19:45, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Nobody's time was wasted. Discussion is always valuable. -- Necrothesp 00:16, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Deleted materialHi There was a vote on deleting some lists related to the article Biodiversity in Israel and Palestine, the vote was Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Spiders_in_Israel_palestine. I did a huge effort collecting these lists and I'm sad cuz they are deleted. Is there any way that I can recover these lists, at least for a while to save them on my PC. I feel shocked that they were deleted after all the efforts I did in research collecting them. If wikipedia do not want them, I do want them, so can you please help me recover them. Thank you very much. Devastated wikipedian--Thameen 16:22, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Thoughts on deletions=Let me share this thought with you. It is really disappointing how in wikipedia the results a lot of effort and research get deleted so easily. When I added these lists to wikipedia after a lot of work and research I was thinking I'm adding to the richness of this encyclopedia. But suddenly few members apear who vote for these lists to be deleted and they get deleted, this easy. No one thought on improving these lists or putting them in a more suitable format or integrating them in the main article in some way. They just got deleted. This makes me wonder how much of the deleted things are trash and how much is sincere high value work. And the idea that a dozen of members can vote to delete an article is very interesting. What if these members are coordinating their actions behind the scenes, what if they have other motives than the well being of wikipedia in their minds. What was I supposed to do to protect the lists that I made, to mobilize my friends in wikipedia to vote in favour of these lists be kept? Will not this form of deletion policy give the upper hand to majority or the more willing and more sincere in mobilising others? I started writing for wikipedia knowing that it is an editable forum. However, the latest delete disappointed me alot. I see my work of days and nights gone in a second. This is heart breaking. Thank you--Thameen 17:10, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Wikipediaいかにウィキペディアに貢献する!? (How do you contribute to Wikipedia?) 悪影丸 (21:39, 2006年10月28日 (UTC))
|