Jump to content

User talk:Hilary T

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Hilary T (talk | contribs) at 16:13, 17 April 2009 (→‎Progress?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Hello, Hilary T! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Pastor Theo (talk) 02:08, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Getting started
Getting help
Policies and guidelines
The community
Writing articles
Miscellaneous

Random Sockpuppet Accusation

You should be aware that someone has flung a random sockpuppet accusation at you. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/WilyD for more information. Cheers, WilyD 16:56, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bilateral relations articles

Considering the current debates about these articles raging on at AfD, is it really in everyone's best interest to continue creating them, as you did with Egypt-Japan relations? The information currently in this article would be better used in articles such as Foreign relations of Japan and Foreign relations of Egypt, both of which have sections that could include what you have written. Furthermore, while I am prepared to accept that some (though far from all) bilateral-nations relations articles may be notable enough to keep, I would personally be more inclined to accept one that had grown to a significant size within an existing article first until the scope and citing of the work warranted a separate article. It does little good to give such a small amount of information and leave it to the masses to work on. Indeed, many articles on Wikipedia grow first out of older ones, which means they are much more complete and coherent articles when they do. Please consider looking for other articles to edit with new information before creating a new one with an overlapping scope. --BlueSquadronRaven 16:48, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • It is in the best interests of the encylopedia, and everyone's interests coincide there, so yes. Another thing which would be in everyone's interest would be if you thought of deletion as the last option, not the first one, as per Wikipedia's deletion policy. Since these are actually notable topics, putting them in their own articles to grow is better than having them in two different articles and letting them get out of sync. Hilary T (talk) 18:20, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then may I humbly suggest that if you create an article you put more effort into researching it than would fill two or three sentences? If you don't know about a topic, fine, but don't create articles of no depth for the sake of creating articles. --BlueSquadronRaven 14:08, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • It would take much longer to do it that way. Hilary T (talk) 14:28, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Your call, but, is it in the encyclopedia's interest to have a short article that says nothing and is likely to get sent to AfD in short order, or a longer, more thought out one that at least makes the attempt to broach its subject adequately and might stand up to closer scrutiny? If it's worth doing, it's worth doing well. --BlueSquadronRaven 15:01, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • BlueSquadronRaven has a point. It doesn't, in fact, take longer, overall. This is for the very simple reason that one doesn't have to spend days being diverted from article writing with deletion discussions. See User:Uncle G/On sources and content#Tips for editors. Write a good stub, with sources for content and for showing places where additional facts can be found for expansion, and the most that you'll usually have to endure is nagging from people who want you to expand it, to which {{sofixit}} and pointing to the cited sources is of course the answer. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 16:39, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
it's well to save what you have already written first, isn't it? it would seem more efficient. It doesn't work out to make articles faster than you a can support them with information and sources. DGG (talk) 23:02, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well since the only people who are looking for sources seem to be WilyD and myself, there is no point even trying to keep up, I'd never get any new articles created and there would be nothing to replace the notable topics which are already being deleted. Hilary T (talk) 09:03, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like a good argument to do the research before you create an article rather than simply creating them willy-nilly. Why the urgency to create new articles? --BlueSquadronRaven 14:30, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Have you seen how many of these are up for deletion at the moment? Hilary T (talk) 14:59, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I've been voting in each and every one, remember? Again, why the urgency to create articles of this type this quickly without having substantial material first? --BlueSquadronRaven 15:09, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Does "burn, baby, burn" ring a bell? Hilary T (talk) 17:48, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it was one of my recent edit summaries in an AfD discussion. Why are you dodging hte question? I'll ask it one last time, and if you can't come up with a decent answer then I see no reason not to take everything you've created to AfD: Why do you feel there is such an urgent need to create bilateral relations stub articles without first having a shred of content to back up claims of notablity? --BlueSquadronRaven 18:04, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Every single unsourced/uncited article created by this user should be speedy deleted, with prejudice. It is not in wikipedia's interests to have unsourced stubs of no established notability because the creator of these stubs says it takes too much time to research and write a proper article. And that's been clearly explained by many editors so far.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:05, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome to take my articles to AFD, and to speedy delete any unsourced ones I create. Hilary T (talk) 21:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've brought this up at AN/I here [1].Bali ultimate (talk) 17:13, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rural Industrial Development Agency

Well done! You beat me to finding sources. Mind you, I was looking for the name in the article's title (which you'll beat me to fixing, too, if I save this edit before fixing myself). ☺

You might want to revisit that establishment date. Page 97 of ISBN 9780415197649 has it established in 1953 under the DDP, and page 74 of Pluralism in Malaysia has it established in 1954.

By the way: {{cite book}} is easy to use, and gives a properly formatted citation with very little effort. Uncle G (talk) 16:39, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Did you look in ISBN 9971988224 ? Hilary T (talk) 20:04, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, I had. The disagreement is still something to revisit, though. I suspect that 1950 is the right date, for a very simple reason: The first source cited in footnote #128 is dated 1951-10-10 and talks in the past tense. It would be a bit difficult to do that for an institution established 2 years in the future. ☺ (More importantly, perhaps, it's a more contemporaneous source and it actually gives a more precise date of establishment: July 1950.) Uncle G (talk) 01:54, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

practical advice

If you would like to get these articles kept, the worst possible way to go about it is to attack other Wikipedians during the discussions. That relationships may be too minor to be worth an article is a valid point--presumably Zimbabwe does have embassies with those countries it considers the most important to it. I really doubt there's ethnic or hegemonic prejudice involved here. I suggest you go back and strike out that comment. And perhaps even apologize. and then, add some more information. For example, something about the foreign aid given would make the article saveable (this is about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greek-Zimbabwean relations). I advise you to do this very quickly. DGG (talk) 22:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • You should think about the consequences of assuming poor countries have no interest in bilateral relations merely because they can't afford an embassy. All that the lack of embassy tells us is that paying for an ambassador isn't one of the top priorities for a country with hyperinflation and a completely fucked health service. Hilary T (talk) 08:54, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Another suggestion: completely separate but you might as well fill out the talk pages with the relevant Wikiprojects. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:08, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, you're doing that but don't forget the category sorting. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:11, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Socks?

If this has been addressed before, my apologies. Are you in any way connected to indef-blocked Groubani (talk · contribs) and indef-blocked Plumoyr (talk · contribs)?

I ask because both Groubani ([2] [3]) and Plumoyr ([4] [5]) created "X-Y relations" stubs that are very similar to the unreferenced "X-Y relations" stubs that you create and which are almost always unreferenced. I'll probably be opening an SPI investigation shortly, but if you have anything to say, sooner would be better than later.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've opened up an SPI investigation about you here. [6].Bali ultimate (talk) 20:53, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My stubs are not unreferenced. Hilary T (talk) 21:14, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bali is probably not counting the embassy websites, he probably means that your articles don't have third-party independient sources (as an apart, it's very good that you are including the links to embassies, you just need to add the other sort of sources also). --Enric Naval (talk) 21:08, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What about The Calgary Herald? Canada wants better monitoring, but remains committed to Haiti Hilary T (talk) 00:22, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that would be a good source. It's useful to put those in the article even if you don't use them as sources: just linking this sort of sources in the external links section will help other editors to find clues on how to improve the article and to rescue it from a possible deletion. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:53, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As a matter of fact I did use that as a source. Hilary T (talk) 22:20, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, and Canada–Haiti relations has been neither prodded nor sent to AfD, so you can see that using that sort of source works. (P.D.: mind you, it works because the source describes notable relationships, if it described non-notable ones then it could be deleted anyways, there is unfortunately no magic recipe to prevent articles from being deleted, just keep using sources like that one since they increase the chances of the article being kept) --Enric Naval (talk) 08:07, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Attack on user page

I've removed the name of the user you are attacking at your user page. For now, I'm not wiping out the entire history of the page (under G10, but I am warning you: attack another user like that again and I will block you. Period. I do not care about the dispute, but your conduct. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:07, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked for disruptive editing at WP:ANI, personal attacks, and threats of vandalism. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:59, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to take up Ricky's invitation. Let's see how long I last before you block me (oops, that happened already, silly me) and move on, good luck with that. Hilary T (talk) 08:23, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, hum, please, for the sake of getting those articles written, just wait out this block and then continue editing as normal, minus any references to other editors. Just don't let yourself get pushed to calling other editors "dumbasses". I have felt many times the need to call other editors dumbasses (and even worse names) and I have just gotten up from the chair and gone to have a short walk to calm down and think a more civil way of saying that I disagree with that person. It's just not worth getting blocked just because you lost your nerve over some dispute. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:26, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a checkuser should determine whether User:Hillary T is really Hilary T (as claimed) or a trolling impersonator. Fram (talk) 08:58, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like an obvious troll, see Special:Contributions/174.132.193.130. I see lately a trend of trolls impersonating blocked editors in order to get them accused of sockpuppetry, let's not fall in their silly shenigangs, WP:DENY and stuff. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:31, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Enric there is no way for me to continue as normal when I am facing a campaign of " edits [which] often avoid gross breaches of civility, especially by refraining from personal attacks, even though they interfere with civil and collaborative editing meant to improve the article", a "Campaign to drive away productive contributors: act in spite of policies and guidelines such as Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:Ownership of articles, engage in sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry, etc. on a low level that might not exhaust the general community's patience, but that operates toward an end of exhausting the patience of productive rules-abiding editors on certain articles.". My patient as a productive rules-abiding editor is at an end, I but I refuse to simply surrender to this tactic. I refuse to simply quit Wikipedia over this, and how long has your block kept me away for? Hilary T (talk) 14:33, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hilary T, are you or are you not the same editor as Hillary T? Fram (talk) 14:42, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Aren't you supposed to be "moving on" by now? 14:44, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Just checking in because i had some interest in all this. The last comment of the user Hilary T certainly seems to be a vow to ignore rules/guidelines/standards here and be disruptive. Perhaps Hilary T can correct or confirm my impression? A non-correction of my impression, i suspect, would quickly lead to much longer blocks (though i can't promise that).Bali ultimate (talk) 23:08, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Progress?

Look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chile–Israel relations. Biruitorul googled... Biruitorul! Then admits he doesn't like it but refrained from voting like a good Wikipedian. There might be hope for you yet. Hilary T (talk) 15:35, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now if only we could see some more generic, non-threatening edit summaries from BlueSquadronRaven... Hilary T (talk) 16:13, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hilary_T&oldid=284444069"