Jump to content

User talk:Bart Versieck

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by BrownHairedGirl (talk | contribs) at 16:01, 20 November 2007 (→‎"Small fix": reply re GRG and WOP). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

  • Current status: > Awaiting posts.

Hello! Please, append your message at the end of the page.

This page is automatically archived by MiszaBot III.

Welcome to Wikipedia!

Goeiedag/Hello Bart Versieck, welcome to Wikipedia!

Here are some tips:

If you feel a change is needed, feel free to make it yourself! Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone (yourself included) can edit any article by following the Edit this page link. Wikipedia convention is to be bold and not be afraid of making mistakes. If you're not sure how editing works, have a look at How to edit a page, or try out the Sandbox to test your editing skills.

If, for some reason, you are unable to fix a problem yourself, feel free to ask someone else to do it. Wikipedia has a vibrant community of contributors who have a wide range of skills and specialties, and many of them would be glad to help. As well as the wiki community pages there are IRC Channels, where you are more than welcome to ask for assistance.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me on my talk page. Thanks, and happy editing.

Blocked

Bart I have blocked you for 48 hours for your disruptive editing and blatant violation of WP:POINT. Stalking BrownHairedGirl and placing uncessary tags on her contributions is not the way we work here as you should know. Playing petty vendetta's because your friend has been blocked for his own disruptive editing will give you a first class ticket to nowhere. Have a short break to calm down, and when you come back get back on board as a useful editor.

I also removed the red background to this talk page as it is hard to read for visually impaired people. If you choose to put it back, that's fine but be aware that it is annoying for some. —Moondyne 23:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Link to the ANI discussion leading to this block: [1]. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A word of warning - editing by proxy for a banned editor will see you blocked indefinitely if it continues. Neil ☎ 15:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I really haven't done anything of the sort: any explanation, please, Neil? -- Extremely sexy (talk) 18:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You nominated James Craig (Irish professor) at AfD and incorrectly tagged a series of articles precisely as Robert Young had asked in the email which I posted to the AfD. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:43, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I thought he meant that I was still editing as an anonymous user while being banned from editing, hence. Extremely sexy (talk) 19:20, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive editing list

Bart

I am still engaged in a long process of tidying up after the disruptive edits you did today at the request of the blocked User:Ryoung122, who is using his yahoogroups mailing lists to try to co-ordinate meatpuppets to disrupt wikipedia, and who asked you and others to engage in precisely this course of disruption (as per the email from Robert which I posted to the AfD).

As you know, I enthusuastically apply {{unreferenced}} tags etc to aricles in need of improvement, and I welcome them being applied to articles which I have edited if the tags actually reflect deficiencies in the articles. Unfortunately, in working off Robert Young's target list, you didn't check, so here is some of the mischief I have fixed:

I note that you have been blocked, and I hoped that when you return you will try to identify articles in need of improvement rather than perceiving tagging as a form of war. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Small fix"

Bart - removing a prod template is most definitely not a "small fix". Why not try adding something useful when you do edit summaries, virtually all your talk page entries are "important reaction" or similar, which helps no one when they are scanning lists of recent changes etc. - -- fchd (talk) 19:01, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Understood: I will. -- Extremely sexy (talk) 21:22, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see that Richard Rundle got here first, but just thought I should note several instances of {{prod}} tags being removed with the edit summary "small fix": [2], [3], [4], [5], and [6].
WP:PROD says that editors who disagree with the proposed deletion should Remove the {{dated prod}} tag from the article, noting this in the edit summary. Editors should explain why they disagree with the proposed deletion." Please could you explain (preferably on the talk pages of the articles) why you disagree with the proposed deletions? (the reason for the {{prod}} was the same in each case "under-referenced sub-stub, with no evidence of notability. This is not an article, it is a factoid which belongs in a list"). Thanks. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:38, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, no to comment: I have merged most of them to articles in Category:Lists of supercentenarians. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:59, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How on earth can one claim that f.e. Kamato Hongo is not notable: she was the oldest person in the world? Extremely sexy (talk) 19:22, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Which part of WP:BIO cites that as grounds for notability?
Go on, if she's that important, find the references. That's all that's needed, just source the article properly: two substantive articles is all you need. If those don't exist, it looks like the rest of world didn't think she was notable, and that's how notability works: it's not about what you or I think, it's about whether other publishers found her notable. --21:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Deal: I will do this, but the Gerontology Research Group and "WOP" definitely are reliable sources. Extremely sexy (talk) 21:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First, please do carefully read WP:RS and Wikipedia:Verifiability. There are some objective measures for assessing the reliability of a source, which go a lot further than "I like and/or trust the author". It's about the extent to which facts are checked by others prior to publication.
Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources_.28online_and_paper.29 is interesting too: it suggests that "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable" ... but goes on to note that "caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so".
So on the WOP question, it might just, according to some interpretations, be useable as a verification source, but it can't establish notability (because if it was worth reporting, it wouldn't have to be self-published)
There is a further problem with WOP, in that it's not publicly viewable, and the author restricts who can view it. That makes it rather useless for verification: a private space is hardly publication.
As to GRG, the first thing to note is that it only publishes lists, not biographies (or even potted biographies), so the coverage of each individual is clearly too trivial to meet the requirements for notability per WP:BIO.
As to the WP:RS reliability of the GRG tables for verification, the problem is that the tables themselves provide no annotations of the sources, and the parent article http://www.grg.org/Adams/Tables.htm provides a very confused account of how the tables were constructed. This falls some way short of the gold standard for reliable sources, and I guess there is room for dispute as to how far short. An RFC might be in order.
Finally, plaese note that WP:COI advises editors to "avoid, or exercise great caution" when "linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles". You are listed at the bottom http://www.grg.org/Adams/Tables.htm as a "long-time collaborator", so it seems to me that WP:COI applies here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You want to live in an independent republic of Flanders

I've heard about this in the media - but on Wikipedia there does not yet appear to be a Flanders independence movement article. Could you possibly suggest why this might be? --h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 22:07, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well: I wouldn't know really, but it's definitely a controversial item and extremely hot nowadays, my friend. -- Extremely sexy (talk) 22:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bart_Versieck&oldid=172718855"