Jump to content

User talk:Uncle G/Archive/2010-09-11

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< User talk:Uncle G‎ | Archive

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by DeviousMischievious (talk | contribs) at 18:19, 4 May 2009 (→‎Good to go: !NOSIGN!). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Notices
Yes, I am an administrator.
If you wish to discuss the content of an article, please do so on that article's own talk page. That's one of the things that they are there for.
I dislike disjointed conversations, where one has to switch between pages as each participant writes.
For past discussions on this page, see the archive.

Mean

This edit was kind of mean, as has your overall attitude towards me in the deletion discussion. I am sure that there are some administrators who would wish to discourage the involvement of new editors in the project. Perhaps you are one of those? Sławomir Biała (talk) 04:03, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For instance, the explicit assertion that my edits were not made "in good faith" seems like a fairly bald charge. Anyway, you may as well block me now for editing in bad faith. I will not object. Sławomir Biała (talk) 04:21, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Shall I take it that I have a second lease on life here? Or shall I go to some appropriate forum and insist that I be blocked for "bad faith editing"? Sławomir Biała (talk) 02:46, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Uncle G/On the discrimination of what is indiscriminate

Can I make it an essay, moving it to Wikipedia main space? Ikip (talk) 01:14, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's already an essay. And some of it is in the first person. A better thing to do would be to find some way to improve that section heading. Uncle G (talk) 01:25, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • As you know, many people scoff when an editor quotes user essays in AfDs, but a mainspace essay has more clout and authority. Have you brought this essay up at WP:NOT? Ikip (talk) 01:28, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • This subheading?: ""Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" is not an indiscriminate criterion for deletion." good question.

        Ikip (talk) 01:29, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

        • No, the section heading that the page is talking about, not that, which isn't a subheading at all. As I said, a far better use of time than discussing whether my page should be in the project namespace or not would be to go to Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not and discuss finding a better section heading. One can always link to that user page to show what the problem is. As to whether I've brought it up: You appear to have missed what I wrote on the page. I did more than bring the issue up. I actually edited the policy to fix part of the problem, back in 2006. Uncle G (talk) 01:49, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Icons in AFD discussions

Hello, Uncle G. You have new messages at Download's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hello, Uncle G. You have new messages at Download's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Chained Mormon

Thanks for joining in. I was standing too close to it to improve it any more. It now looks like a substantial and well cited article and precisely in "our" mould here. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 07:59, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Carrie Petrelli

Heh. Thanks for using that as an example -- now I can't A7 it myself. :-)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:39, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm reasonably sure that I haven't used that article as an example of anything. And "what links here" seems to indicate that no-one else has, either. Do you have the correct article? Uncle G (talk) 21:00, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah. You're talking about the AFD discussion, not the article. I did use that as an example. One interesting and relevant thing is what the nominee in another RFA discussion did, with a similar question. See this edit. That edit all by itself was a fairly good indication of how the nominee would use xyr tools, I thought. I've just been back to the discussion, this being the earliest opportunity that I've had to revisit it, and found it closed — alas! Uncle G (talk) 21:12, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Thanks for your comments on my talk page. It was interesting that you found my clean-up of your question more informative than my answers :D By the way, I see that you were involved with WP:AfC in its beginnings? Martinmsgj 07:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Indeed, I was. The refactoring that you did showed how you thought, how you approached using your existing tools, and thus how you would approach using the tools that you were nominated for receiving. Uncle G (talk) 11:08, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deconstructing SMPs

Lol, I didn't even realize that. I obviously didn't read the entire article, and the parts I skimmed over, I figured it was just the result of a really, really bad automated translator. :P Anyway, thanks for cleaning that up. =) --slakr\ talk / 13:36, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Piano rock article content

Hi, I just saw that the piano rock article was deleted. Article deletions are always unfortunate when the articles in question arguably contain useful (and in this case, even cited) information. Do you still have access to the content of the deleted article? I can think of three ways to remedy this situation at least a bit:

  • Add a summary of the information in the article to another article, which addresses the notability and single-source problems, since you do not even need to claim that there is a recognised genre, only a trend or strain of piano-based rock
  • The solution chosen in List of musical works in unusual time signatures#See also, which references an earlier, unsourced list that is a subpage of the talk page belonging to the article
  • The solution chosen in User:Melodia/List of popular songs based on classical music, with a subpage of a user page housing the information, which would not take up a lot of server space in your case anyway and as such, cannot be construed as misuse.

I would be glad if you found a way to salvage the article content and make it available and findable for interested users. Florian Blaschke (talk) 15:04, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sanaz Shirazi

Hello Can I make changes and add more info to the article? Dont like the way some of it sounded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qchristina (talk • contribs) 18:22, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • We welcome expansion of stub articles. But that expansion must be done properly. This isn't a press release service, a personal web site, or an advertising billboard. It is an encyclopaedia. Your additions must be verifiable, neutral, and not original research. I've started the article off in the right direction. Notice that everything there can be checked, by readers, against fully identified sources with good reputations for checking their facts, and does not present the Shirazi's views as if they were Wikipedia's. (Wikipedia, an encyclopaedia, has no views.) In addition to the tutorial and the policies that other people are already pointing you towards on your talk page, I suggest that you also read User:Uncle G/On sources and content#Tips for editors. Work from good sources, show the sources, be neutral, include only knowledge that is actually acknowledged by the world at large, don't mis-use Wikipedia for what it is not, and you won't encounter too much trouble and difficulty here. Uncle G (talk) 18:37, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hm...

I appreciate that ad hominem attack on VP. Very well done. So, if we're going to play little games, was this also why you pulled a prod off Felicitaries with no reasoning? MSJapan (talk) 21:39, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • There was no ad hominem anywhere. I simply told you to think about why we are so poor in expanding certain classes of stubs, by considering why you yourself do not expand them.

    Come now! Think! The reasons that you don't expand them are the same reasons that many others don't, either. This doesn't make the articles the problem. It makes lack of editor ability, willingness, interest, time, and other factors, the problem. As I said, the fact that we have these stubs says nothing about the articles. The only thing that it reflects upon is Wikipedia editors.

    Your attempt to address the problem by thinking of how to systematically remove the articles is entirely wrongheaded. It's the editors where the problem lies. That is what you should be trying to fix. And a good place to start is by looking at the reasons that you yourself don't write, when not only do you know that sources exist, you even know exactly where and what they are. Figure out what would encourage you to write, and you'll have a way to encourage others to do so, too. Uncle G (talk) 23:10, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Linking Degree (Freemasonry) at Freemasonry

I am not asking for "perfection" before we link to it... however, I am asking that we not link to sub-articles that have fundamental factual accuracy issues. Those need to be ironed out, then we can link. Blueboar (talk) 21:49, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • There's no justification for that, and that's not how Wikipedia is built. We don't de-link articles because they don't yet include all information on a subject. We build the web, especially in the case of main topic articles for sub-topics within other articles. And via that web, other editors find articles and work on them, and help us to write the encyclopaedia. We certainly don't remove internal links on spurious "verifiability" grounds (especially since unverifiability isn't even the issue with the article being linked to, as you and I both know). A main article internal link cannot be unverifiable. That's clearly a reach. Uncle G (talk) 22:00, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I think this is now a moot point. Most of the factual inaccuracies have been ironed out, and as a result my objections to linking it at the main Freemasonry article have been resolved. I will re-link it. Blueboar (talk) 17:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Uncle G. You have new messages at Bongomatic's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Icon Group International and GFDL

Apologies for bringing this to your talk page rather than to the appropriate discussion page. There seem to be several potentially appropriate discussion pages so I don't want to choose one where this will be ignored, and you seem to have a pretty good understanding of GFDL.

What do you make of the GFDL compliance of these books that have copyright notices such as this? Is that notice sufficient attribution to us, the copyright holders? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:55, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on proposal

Hi, as you participated in the village pump discussion, I'd like to draw your attention to this proposal. Further input is welcome. OrangeDog (talk • edits) 12:35, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Devendorf and Jonny Flynn

Hey - these two articles have been consistently vandalized recently. Can you protect these two pages for a short period of time? GoCuse44 (talk) 14:31, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


AbsoluteTelnet DRV

Hi! I left a response to your comments on the AbsoluteTelnet DRV page. I was hoping you could read my additional comments and respond AbsoluteTelnet DRV. Thanks --Brian Pence (talk) 20:09, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Flagrant disregard of guidelines

Hi Uncle G

What do you make of the reply to my original point at User talk:Kittybrewster#Marvin Sutton?

Thanks, Bongomatic 10:15, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nice!

I'm referring to User:Uncle G/Wikipedia triage. That rocks! I'd support moving it to the mainspace if you felt it was ready.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 16:08, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seattle-Portland Rivalry

Noticed that you removed the AfD on this article. I didn't realize that one was made previous to the 24th until now but consensus seems to be to remove and it doesn't meet standards. It has hardly been improved content wise. Also, some have expressed valid concerns with notability, the title, and verifiability. I'm not necessarily against including this article but don't think it is appropriate at this time. Is it eligible for deletion if the article is not improved? If so, how long is appropriate to wait?Cptnono (talk) 01:58, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I did no such thing. I ejected it from Proposed Deletion, because it was ineligible, having already been contested once, the first time that it was nominated for Proposed Deletion. The difference between AFD and Proposed Deletion was explained to you yesterday, on the article's talk page. Follow the hyperlinks that were given in that explanation, in particular the one that leads to Wikipedia:Proposed Deletion, to see what Proposed Deletion is all about, and what it does not cover.

    Don't treat this as Someone Else's Problem, by the way. Deletion nominations are not sticks to beat other editors with into doing one's bidding. If you want an article expanded or cleaned up, follow the advice in User:Uncle G/Wikipedia triage#What to do: expand it or clean it up yourself, or apply the appropriate expansion or cleanup request tag. You all have the page move tool for fixing the the title, moreover. That isn't a matter for deletion, either. Nominating an entire article for deletion because one is unwilling to simply rename it appropriately using the tools that one readily has to hand onesself is wasting everyone else's time frivolously.

    Only nominate an article for deletion on notability or verifiability grounds if you've looked for sources yourself, and come up with nothing usable. The first step is looking for sources. Only after you've done that can you confidently and honestly say that none exist, at which point you can go straight to deletion and present a solid rationale that actually has a basis in our deletion policy. There isn't a waiting period, but there is a necessary precursor. The idea that waiting is even involved is wrongheaded. You shouldn't be waiting, for Somebody Else to do the work, you should be doing — searching for sources, yourself. And if you actually do find sources when you look for them, the next step is improving the article, not deletion nominations of any sort. You'll have done some useful legwork that can help other editors. (This is, after all, a collaboratively written project. Writing the encyclopaedia is not Somebody Else's Problem. Everyone adds a little bit of work, and, amazingly, the encyclopaedia gets written.) Again, see the triage procedure. Uncle G (talk) 02:32, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Did you intend to come across snippy and lecturing? I think you missed my point completely. As I have stated in the article's talk pages, I don't see how it can be a valid article if it can't be improved. I have attempted to find sources but can't. At this time I remain doubtful that it can be fixed and wanted to see if there was criteria to keep the rivalry information in the team's subsection if it is not possible. I also did not see where you explained to me the difference between AfD and Proposed Deletion. Would you mind throwing that link in so I can read what you said? I will look at the info you mention above as well but am curious to your previous explanation on this one in particular.Cptnono (talk) 03:14, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I didn't explain it to you. Peteforsyth did. And if you've looked and found no sources at all documenting any such thing, you can nominate the article for deletion at AFD. The criterion for including such content anywhere, in a standalone article or as part of a larger article, is verifiability. If you've tried to find sources against which this content can be verified by readers, and have failed, then it fails to satisfy that requirement. Uncle G (talk) 10:07, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

****Understand what you were trying to say about the difference between an AfD and Proposed Deletion now. Regardless of me getting the terminology wrong and since you look like a fan of rescuing articles, is this article worthy of expansion? This article could be wikilawyered and stylized to be OK at first glance but it still looks like the information works best in the subsections of the two teams, potentially the Cascadia cup (Seattle-Portland-Vancouver), or maybe new articles about the relatively small supporter groups of the two teams who don't have articles but care most about the rivalry. In your opinion, is it best in this stub (it can be forced larger if needed) or is expansion to the already existing articles sufficient. Talk:Seattle-Portland Rivalry has some links to sources but no one has taken notice.Cptnono (talk) 07:24, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well would you look at that. The supporter groups of both teams now have pages and both link to the article. Someone from the ECS found a source from '03 that is good. I sourced the article and threw in some wiki formatting goodness. The article is still in desperate need of expansion but good looking out on your part by keeping it in.Cptnono (talk) 08:21, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rescue Barnstar

The Article Rescue Barnstar
For your editorial efforts culminating in the rescue of The Economist editorial stance. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 16:48, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good close!

Now how often do you hear "good close" at AfD??? *grin*

I was tempted to speedy Giambracy as a G3 and figured I wouldn't bite. Given the pattern you saw, looks like I was assuming a bit too much good faith. Good job!--Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:34, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Addition to DRV process

Hi, you've been active as an administrator in the DRV process in the past so I would appreciate your comments on my suggested change to DRV requirements. Thanks! [[::User:Usrnme h8er|Usrnme h8er]] (talk · contribs) 09:05, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Functional integration (neurobiology)

Hi -- why did you remove the prod from that article? Without a source it's utterly useless, and I, a neurobiologist, don't know how to find a source for it. I feel that as an admin who ought to behave responsibly, it is now up to you to turn that into at least a semi-respectable article. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 18:40, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • You do know how to find a source for it. The technical term for the process involved is "reading". ☺ One place to begin reading is the "Further reading" section of the article itself, in fact. More ways to find sources can be found using the methods outlined in the several places indexed at Wikipedia:Editor's index to Wikipedia#Resource. And you don't get to demand that other people edit articles for you. Everyone here is a volunteer. You want the article improved? {{sofixit}}! Uncle G (talk) 19:08, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Let me try this a different way. Why did you remove the prod? Are you actually familiar enough with the term "functional integration" as used in neuroscience to believe that the article is valid? (To put this on the right plane, maybe I should explain that I'm not a newbie, I'm the maintainer of WikiProject Neuroscience.) Looie496 (talk) 20:11, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • You are avoiding doing what I said to do. Go and read the "Further reading" section of the article. You should be reading, not arguing.

        Indeed, as a WikiProject Neuroscience member, you should be busy showing that you can find even more sources, and do far better in your own chosen field of the encyclopaedia, than some random person called "Uncle G" managed to do in a few minutes with only some ordinary search tools. I can find things such as doi:10.1038/sj.npp.1300145 with a few minutes' work. You should be able to do better. You should be busy showing me (and everyone else) up, by finding even more — far more — sources than I did, and turning neuroscience stubs into full articles. After all, it's what the WikiProject that you are a member of is supposedly there to do.

        If you want some more things to put on that WikiProject's to-do list, read Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Typoglycemia (2nd nomination). Uncle G (talk) 23:28, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ANI Discussion

Another user has posted to ANI an issue that concerns you. The relevant thread can be found here. TNXMan 16:00, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Source Credibility

Hi. I'm somewhat speechless, actually. I have listed this edit: [1] on the WP:ANI. It took me a while, because I've never had to do this before, and wasn't even sure what to do. I thought discussions of this sort were always done on talk pages? If you look at my contributions, I don't think you'll find very many recent mistakes of the magnitude you describe. Have I pissed you off sometime in a past life? Did I criticize a previous edit? I just dont' get it... --OliverTwisted (Talk) (Stuff) 16:04, 5 April 2009 (UTC) [reply]

  • Okay, now that I've had a good cry and ate a tub of ice cream (kidding), I've thought of a response. "You are SO off my Christmas card list!" ;o) --OliverTwisted (Talk) (Stuff) 16:33, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I never expected to be on your Christmas card list in the first place. As for the rest: This isn't about you. I repeat — the only person who is calling you disparaging names is you yourself. No-one else has. It's your own characterization, unfounded in anything anyone else has written. Don't drag me (or indeed anyone else) into it. This is about the application, and mis-application, of deletion policy to an article, and errors made in doing so. And as such it's an AFD discussion. Now read the notice about disjointed discussions that is right at the start of this very page, that I've had there for years, and that you'll find to be a philosophy that I share with a fair number of editors here. (There are differing philosophies, of course.) ☺ Uncle G (talk) 17:43, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • ReplyAs Daffy Duck might say, we have some pronoun trouble with that argument (as well as a general lack of humor). I'm going to highlight the number of times you used the word you and your. Then tell me again about how it wasn't about me.

        This isn't about notability. That's a complete red herring. Your rationale as given is 3 words. It's clear what policy it references. That application of policy was wrong (your application of the policy was wrong, since I was the only using 3 words), as reading the article properly, and checking out the sources that it already cited, would have revealed. Clearly, you didn't look at the sources to see whether the article was presenting unpublished ideas not discussed in sources, even though checking articles against what sources say is one of the primary purposes of citing sources in Wikipedia. Moreover, it was wrong in a way that the article actually discusses as its subject. Clearly, you didn't pick up on that.

        Furthermore, your discussion of "sin" is a straw man of your own construction. No-one except you yourself has said that you have sinned. There's nothing "aggressive" about pointing out where policy has been grossly, and ironically, mis-applied in a way that it does not actually apply at all. (Hint: There are, sadly, plenty of examples of aggression on Wikipedia. It generally looks like this or this. Spot the quite marked difference? No-one has called you ignorant, useless, or impertinent, or told you to "grow up and shut the fuck up". And the only person who has called you a sinner is you yourself.)

        Finally, you ask for votes. This is not a vote, and the above is an opinion with an explanation. It's a quite clear explanation of how policy does not apply in the way that you assert it to apply, and what the error is that you've all made. (It's not the first time that people have looked at an unwikified article and not seen past the markup.) In yet further irony, you talk of explanations when your 3-word rationale is devoid of any explanation at all. This only serves to highlight your further error in stating that I'm explaining your reason to you. Quite the contrary, I'm taking your reason exactly as it was written: that the Wikipedia:No original research policy purportedly applied. You either don't understand that policy in the slightest, or you didn't look at the sources cited and didn't look beyond the style of the article to its substance. I took it that you understood the policy, but didn't read the article and see its actual substance, including the reliable sources that it cited in support of every single part of its content, for the unwikification and the Harvard referencing — as so many have done before you (Despite Wikipedia style guidelines, I've observed a significant bias against Harvard referencing at AFD over the years.), and that is spectacularly ironic in this particular case, given what this article's subject in fact is. You could have been simply sheep voting, of course, but I didn't work on that assumption.

        When someone makes an error, it's quite legitimate to point out that it is an error. You weren't "targetted for trying to apply standards". You were told that you were doing things wrongly, and not actually applying our policies. You were not applying our standards, in any way. The route to not getting a complete misapplication of policy being pointed out by other people is to not mis-apply it in the first place, not to try to distract the discussion onto the subject of the people who point out such errors when they happen. Uncle G (talk) 15:33, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

        Tell me again how this doesn't apply to me? I missed it somewhere... This is like that game when a "friend" takes your arm and hits you in the head, all the while saying "Why are you hitting yourself, huh? Why are you hitting yourself?" --OliverTwisted (Talk) (Stuff) 17:58, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I said that it's not about you. "You" isn't "your". The very first "your" is part of the phrase "your rationale". The second is part of the phrase "your application of the policy". I could go on with "your assertion" and so forth, but the point should be amply clear. This isn't about you. This is about policy, its application and its misapplication, how you applied it, and didn't apply it correctly. It's about your rationale, your argument, and your application and implementation of policy, not about you. You aren't told that you are a moron, a schoolchild, or even a surrender-eating cheese monkey. It's not about you.

          It's daft, moreover, to expect people to jump through convoluted linguistic hoops to avoid responding in the second person, in ordinary discourse, to text where someone immediately before talks in the first person (of "my interpretation", "our reasons", and what "I did"), just in order to avoid using the word "your" so that silly word-counting games cannot be played later.

          And you are hitting yourself. You characterized yourself as a sinner. You called yourself a "dumb schoolchild" and a "moron". No-one else has done any of this. Indeed, you started in on other people, too, attacking Unomi here for something that, if you had actually read the case you would know turned out to be false. I'm not asking you why you are hitting yourself. But I am saying to stop. Stop hitting yourself, and stop hitting other people, too. You're the only one doing it.

          There is a game here, but it's the game of putting words into other people's mouths, hitting out at complete strangers who disagree with onesself, and hitting onesself and trying to place the blame for it with other people. Uncle G (talk) 18:28, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimately it doesn't really matter to me. The article is going to be deleted anyway. I'm going to do a brief sockpuppet investigation, lick my wounds and go back to my constructive editing. I really don't hold grudges, and if I'm proved wrong, it won't be the first time I've been wrong. I'll be happy to apologize on your talk page. But I don't let anyone speak to me the way you did without a response. People skills... not your strong point. --OliverTwisted (Talk) (Stuff) 18:38, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Erased diff

Hi Uncle G. You erased this diff. I am sure it was by accident, since as you see from the AfD you have persuaded me :) Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 20:03, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bluck Bluck Sizzle Yum

Boston (talk) has given you a fresh piece of fried chicken! Pieces of fried chicken promote WikiLove and hopefully this piece has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a piping hot piece, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Bon appetit!

I'm giving you this chicken after noticing you came under fire for something you said in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Source Credibility discussion. Your point is a good one...I know I myself am too quick to disregard article content when the format doesn't look right to me! I hope you don't become too mired in the debate about the debate (about the debate about the debate about the debate) but rather can soon return to happier pursuits. Best wishes. --Boston (talk) 21:05, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Administrative mind reading

I think it is pointless and simply fanning the flames to attack an editor who is having issues with you when you have addressed that issue-haver thus:

"It's a shame that none of you read the article, because it makes the very point that I'm about to make. The only reasons that you think that this is an essay, ... The fact that it was unwikified entirely slewed your opinions, and those opinions have no basis in policy whatsoever. You should have read the article properly, ignoring (or — better yet! — fixing) the cleanup issues."

If your concern is the article and the improper AfD (which it certainly is improper, as the subject has high EV), then you might better address the issue by not telling people what they are thinking. I often think that AfDs are proposed by editors who have not read the article, have not researched the topic, and know nothing about the topic, and frankly, I think are incapable of learning about the topic. And, I've said all of this in AfD discussions. My doing this serves no purpose other than to unnecessarily irritate people and take the focus off the subject at hand: the encyclopedia and a particular article. You're an administrator and could consider setting an example for other editors by not telling people what they are thinking--the ultimate in original research. Simply point out that the topic is clearly notable, point to some books that discuss the topic, and suggest the AfD be closed. I'll try to take my own advice, also. --KP Botany (talk) 22:30, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Except that I did not tell them what they were thinking. They told us, quite explicitly, what they thought: "Essay", "It looks like an essay", "original research". No mind reading was involved when I wrote that they thought that it was an essay or original research. It's what they themselves wrote they thought it was. Uncle G (talk) 02:58, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your links indicate the editors did read the article and drew conclusions based upon their reading. And that is what you are say in the post, the editors drew faulty conclusions based upon their reading, as you follow with arguments dsyinh you know why they voted the way they did based upon their reading of the article and finding Harvard referencing while not finding wikification. You contradict yourself--they either read the article and saw Harvard referencing and no Wikification or not. About this I can say nothing more.

      You also said, "The only reasons that you think that this is an essay," (emphasis mine) is telling them what they are thinking.

      In my opinion, an administrator would be a better advocate for the encyclopedia Wikipedia by setting a strong example that includes focusing on the content of the encyclopedia rather than on another editor's motives or thinking. --KP Botany (talk) 05:06, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      • KP, Uncle G has more than 5 times the number of mainspace edits you have (but fewer talk and user talk than you do—something to consider?), has been an administrator since dinosaurs walked the earth, and delivered most of Moses' policy tablets to Wikipedia in the first place. He has seen people with your or my edit counts come and go. His style of offering commentary on what would make the project better is infuriating to many (it has been to me on several occasions). He often refuses to address a question someone asks, in favor the the question he thinks you should have asked. But trying to tell someone with his depth of experience in Wikipedia how to improve motivations of other contributors—a topic he has no doubt been confronted with from every angle hundreds of times if not more—is futile. My recommendation for how to benefit from Uncle G (not necessarily for you, but for those to whom he addressed his comments) is this: get over being offended by the messenger, and see if there's anything in the message that would be valuable (for the project) for you to incorporate into your thinking. Bongomatic 05:56, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, edit count is not a right to rudeness. Whatever gave you that idea? The encyclopedia is a joint effort of thousands of volunteers, and to insult one editor with the notion that they do not have enough edits to be considered a valuable contributor is not exactly a defense of Uncle G's behaviour. It's more the opposite. And I should be insulted that I discuss points with other editors on Wikipedia on talk pages? By whatever standard is discussing the editing of an article with other editors a bad thing? Again, you've not exactly risen in defense of allowing bad behaviour on Wikipedia--often the goal of searching and counting someone's edit history for some reason. This is a good thing, though, that you've failed to defend unnecessary rudeness because showing more ways that bad behaviour is indefensible gets my message across. Thanks. --KP Botany (talk) 06:49, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • You're setting up straw men. There was no rudeness here. There were no insults, no derogatory names, no discussion of the editors themselves, at all. So what defends rudeness is entirely irrelevant.

            I also point out this to the both of you: The number of edits that people have on their accounts has nothing to do with this as far as I am concerned. This should be obvious from the fact that this began with an objection to the deletion of an article created by Dawson2824 (talk · contribs), an editor with exactly four edits (of which this article was xyr first), and whom I've pointedly praised several times for actually creating an article the right way, the way that we all say articles should be created. You want an administrator setting an example? Try this: I've been opposing the automatic assumption of bad faith that some make of editors without accounts, and of apparent (but not necessarily actual) novice editors, since at least 2004. (Yes, I really do mean before I myself finally created an account.) Uncle G (talk) 12:44, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      • No. Once again: They told us what they were thinking, quite explicitly. No mind reading was involved. The statement "you think that this is an essay" following an edit that quite explicitly says "essay" is not mind reading but a simple reference to the thought so expressed.

        And it's quite possible to look at something without seeing what is actually there, and to be influenced by presentation to the extent that one discounts content. That is, after all, one of the very things that this aspect of social psychology is about. That doesn't make a person doing that all of the things that have been asserted (but not by me) in these fragmented discussions. It simply makes that person in error.

        You want an example of mind reading? You've commented on how you sometimes think that other editors are ignorant and incapable, and what to do in such circumstances. What makes you think that I thought anything like that? As I keep saying, I wrote nothing of the kind. (Go and look at the section just above on this very talk page. I often take the view that other editors in fact have greater capabilities than I have.) Now arguing on the basis that I thought something about a fellow editor that I never wrote is mind-reading. There is mind reading here, but it's not on my part. Or — rather — it would be mind-reading, had I not also clearly stated that I made no such assumptions about lack of understanding, ignorance, or laziness, right at the beginning. Uncle G (talk) 12:44, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Anyway, Uncle G, I've said my piece, and I stand by it, no matter how many editors offer excuses. en.wiki is unnecessarily rude and hostile to other editors and stopping that pointless antagonism can start anywhere, even with me, even with you. --KP Botany (talk) 06:52, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to stop by and apologize for allowing my emotions to get the best of me yesterday. Your points have been absorbed, and I don't disagree with the academic points of what you had to say. I should not have allowed myself to continue responding, and I certainly should never have degenerated to a state where I lashed out at an innocent bystander. I have already apologized to Unomi for my careless words. I don't respond well to people telling me what I'm thinking, explaining my reasons to me, and using a didactic platform to belittle the contributions of others. This does not give me the right to be an ass, however. I apologize for causing a disruption and I will be withdrawing my objection to the Source credibility article. I do not hold grudges longer than overnight, so please don't think you've made an enemy, or that I will be engaging in any kind of petty reprisals. I hope we can find some common ground on articles in the future. Best regards. --OliverTwisted (Talk) (Stuff) 01:30, 6 April 2009 (UTC) [reply]

  • I'll chime in with Oliver here, in some ways. Uncle G, you did tell me why I thought it was OR (wikilinks, Harvard), and while you were not (entirely!) correct in your assessment, you got me thinking about things, and you certainly made me look more carefully at the article. A while ago you berated me in some other AfD discussion, and while you were right (as you so often are) I also felt a little, hmm, miffed, and stayed away from discussions where you were involved. All the while, I gladly admit that I have on occasion struck the wrong tone, esp. in AfD discussions, while knowing less about policy (not to mention librarian and academic matters) than you do, so there's not much sense in me calling any kettle black. Anyway, all the best, and see you next time. Drmies (talk) 15:04, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

whaddayaknow

I was browsing through the list of DYK candidates and found something that pertains directly to this discussion, in the nominations for articles created on 10 April. Scroll down to the entry for Richmond Bridge, London, and you'll see what I mean--I think you might chuckle. I sure did. Drmies (talk) 19:28, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

redirect on Request for Removal of Copywrite Violation

We saw your explanation of this at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion#April 6 -- we had, immediately prior to this, used this page (Request for Removal of Copywrite Violation) which was redirected; the redirect seemed reminiscent of the tactic of using a "redirect" as an adjunct to "merge" for unscrupulous effective deletion of Wikipedia articles by a legal-process sort of vandalism to which Wikipedia seems to be highly prone : the legal vandals' scheme also involves claiming (by the legal vandal) of alleged "copyright-violation". (As a co-author of a number of thusly-deleted Wikipedia articles, I am seeking administrative redress on some of these matters through any available appeals process, and have a number of appeals already on file with Wikipedia appeals-offices as concerns these cases.)

Incidentally, the extremely swift removal from public access of the "page history" of an article deleted by legal vandalism renders the names of co-authors of those article likewise inaccessible, so that the locating of co-authors in order to apprise them of the fact of their articles having been deleted (so as to alert them of their need to file appeals), becomes impossible without administrative assistance. Would you (or any other administrator to whom you might refer us) be willing to assist us in locating co-authors of deleted articles?71.76.32.220 (talk) 13:08, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Looking at Special:DeletedContributions/71.76.32.220 I see that you do not have any deleted contributions at all.

    The editor who made that RFD nomination was 0XQ, and unfortunately yes, that editor is violating copyright. One of the articles that xe created was Lumbrokinase. It comprised five paragraphs, each of which was simply copied and pasted from another WWW page. 0XQ did not write anything in that article in xyr own words.

    For example: the fourth paragraph of that article, beginning "Four phases of clinical studies have been done on LK at the Beijing Xuanwu Hospital", was copied and pasted in its entirety from here. That WWW page is, as you can see by reading it, not free content. It even explicitly says, at its foot, "Copyright© 2004-2009 --- NutriCology, Inc. --- All rights reserved.". Copying and pasting it is a copyright violation.

    Creating articles by simply copying other people's writing, is not writing. It's taking other people's writing and passing it off as one's own. It's laziness. And it's not allowed here at Wikipedia. We want content that is written in editors' own words. We don't want people to do what 0XQ did. It wasn't writing.

    Two other articles that 0XQ worked upon (but did not create) are Serratiopeptidase and Serrapeptase. But these have not been deleted. One can look in their deletion logs, here and here, to see that. They were merged, because they were the same subject by different names. We have one article per subject here at Wikipiedia.

    Now mergers are not always perfect. Some editors are hasty. Some consider helping with any part of the merger process other than the final redirect to be Somebody Else's Problem. Some are merely starting off a process actually desired by other people, upon whom the responsibility really lies to fully enact what they opine should be done. If there's something in the edit history of one article that has not been merged into the other article, and as long as it wasn't someone else's text that 0XQ was passing off as being xyr own (as xe did with Lumbrokinase) and as long as it is in accordance with our other content policies (in addition to our copyright policy), it can be retrieved from the edit history (which, having not been deleted, is accessible) of the redirected title and added to the merged article (noting in the edit summaries what article it was taken from, for GFDL compliance). All editors have the tools to complete an incomplete merger.

    And there are already discussions at Talk:Serrapeptase and Talk:Serratiopeptidase where editors are open to discussing what further text can be merged, which any editor can join and contribute to. Uncle G (talk) 14:18, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ysgol Gyfun Garth Olwg

I have had a go at making it more neutral. Thatsitivehadenough (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:22, 9 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Yes good work. Thanks. Thatsitivehadenough (talk) 14:12, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I realise you are busy with other stuff on here. But I would really appreciate you putting the page on your watch list to help stop the vandalism and also to speak out if you see it loosing its neutrality in either direction! I hope I will be able to concentrate on expanding a few articles over Easter now. Thanks. Thatsitivehadenough (talk) 14:16, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Can you take a look. Someone has undone the great work you did on Ysgol Gyfun Garth Olwg yesterday. Thanks. 86.159.65.72 (talk) 14:52, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have seen that you have been on the article. I explained to the other editor that you had done some good work and they put your section back and added some more. Thatsitivehadenough (talk) 21:24, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New AfD format and Whitney Lakin

Hi UncleG, I'm unable to figure out how to edit Whitney Lakin as it lacks a link to the AfD on the page for the date. Any ideas? Hobit (talk) 01:17, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

thank you for your reply and suggestions.--Juliaaltagracia (talk) 01:18, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gesupur

Hello, Uncle G. You have new messages at Phil Bridger's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

re: Godwin's Law

The Socratic Barnstar
For your post regarding Godwin's Law at ANI (see below diff). You're one of the only Wikipedians here who understand what is going on around here. I couldn't have said it any better myself. MuZemike 15:46, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the diff: [3] MuZemike 15:46, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exothermic welding

Nice work on this one - I had no clue how to fix it, but you have significantly improved it. – ukexpat (talk) 01:39, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

right--I too was struggling to figure out what to do with this. Thanks DGG (talk)

AfD revisited

I read your comment yesterday and found it useful and enlightening, and was waiting to see what the author's response would be. The article has been changed in a meaningful way, and I'm actually rooting for the author--though I'm not fully convinced yet, it won't take much. Thanks for your interest. Drmies (talk) 15:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No more warnings

I'm through with playing games here. Hilary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LetsPlayHardball (talk • contribs) 07:48, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well OK, BlueSquadronRaven isn't editing right now so I'm kinda losing my motivation... let's hope he comes back soon to get me all riled up again... —Preceding unsigned comment added by LetsPlayHardball (talk • contribs) 16:37, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you wonder how BlueRavenSquadron managed to spend so long at Wikipedia without realizing the GFDL requires attribution? I think it's this phrase here, from the edit screen which everyone sees:

Do not copy text from other websites without a GFDL-compatible license. It will be deleted.

This isn't enough, because it seems to imply that you can simply copy text from anywhere as long as it has a GFDL-compatible license. And this is one reason why Wikipedia is an ever-growing mountain of GFDL and other copyright violations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LetsPlayHardball (talk • contribs) 23:24, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I got my motivation back! and given that Wikipedia is an ever-growing mountain of copyright infringement anyhow, I hardly need to feel guilty about vandalising it.

Re: DRV

 Done. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 13:26, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sock puppetry

Hi Uncle G. Just wanted to say thanks for the follow-up work you've been doing in looking at the contributions of the JamesBurns sock puppets, and looking over the AfD list at User:Paul Erik/Sandbox. I am learning from this experience. Much appreciated, Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 03:20, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another question: What distinguishes a discussion that should go to DRV (like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Papa vs Pretty) from one that should just be re-listed (like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lac Motion)? Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 22:51, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well actually I took both to MBisanz, first. The latter is almost certainly a re-list. This is because taking the sockpuppets to be one person, there's just the nominator and one other person there. Relisting for further, wider, discussion, by more people, is often the strategy there. The former is more complex. It could be a simple re-list, or there could be enough there as it stands for a safe decision to be made. (By "safe" I mean one that we can have reasonable confidence to have come to the correct result, in accordance with our deletion policy.) Notice that, unlike the case of the other discussion, we have the article's creator addressing the notability criteria, and Phil Bridger pointing out that what is shown isn't enough. My suggestion was Deletion Review, to get more opinions on whether this was a discussion that safely came to the correct conclusion. It's currently in MBisanz's hands. Uncle G (talk) 01:13, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have a question on this topic, if you don't mind: if the participants in the debate haven't read the deletion policy, and don't even read the debate itself (like someone who's name I am not going to mention), is it actually wrong to use sock puppets to argue for the correct result, in accordance with your deletion policy? JustOneMoreQuestion (talk) 07:57, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or even against the correct result, just for kicks? JustOneMoreQuestion (talk) 08:51, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that would result in an awful lot of work if and when they realized what had been going on. Goesquack (talk) 10:28, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uncle G, I see that you've found the "clear connection" I was talking about between Megan1967 and the other socks. When you open the SPI for User:Leanne, I will add any evidence I found that you may have overlooked. DHowell (talk) 02:46, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oneirological Advertising

I suppose that is an issue that must be raised about that user's page - though I'm as guilty as anyone else of having joke material on mine. :) - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:17, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More sock puppetry

If you look at BlueSquadronRaven's contributions you'll see why there's no point attempting to answer this kind of spam with policy based arguments. There isn't time to google a fraction of these things, let alone trying to build the article. It's not even worth trying to use good puppets which vote the right way because (1) still have to google and (2) you're still outnumbered by Butuirol, Dahn, Bali ultimate etc. The only thing left is bad puppets, hoping to refute the logic they are using and draw in other neutral people to help. Also it keeps the Ricky81682 challenge alive. Mergellus (talk) 16:43, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the nomination for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Belarus–United Arab Emirates relations does it not challenge your ability to assume good faith? Mergellus (talk) 17:14, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can see that they only win (1) because Wikipedia makes decisions by ballot, not discussion, and (2) your ballots are being stuffed by spammers. Wuzzit (talk) 19:14, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What's even worse is Ukraine–Vietnam relations. Someone actually expanded that so you have no excuses left. I pledge 10 items of sneaky vandalism for that one, but I'll give you a few days if you want to take it to DRV. Wuzzit (talk) 20:05, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michelle Leslie

Thank you for your comments. I agree with your points re BLP's, and completely disagree with your criticism of me for commenting on the discussion without having copyedited the article. People have time for what they have time for, and I didn't (haven't yet?) had time to work on the article itself.

I agree there is a responsibility on all editors (not just administrators) to remove poorly sourced information from BLP's. I also agree there was poorly sourced information in the Michelle Leslie article. Alas, between the time I commented on the AfD and the time you did, I was largely away in real life doing other things. Now I'm back I'm happy to work on this or any other BLP, though I note you've already started work on it. I respect your extensive contributions to Wikipedia and would welcome any further suggestions (even criticisms) you might have re editing priorities. But to avoid diverting the AfD I'd suggest they might be better placed either here or at my talk page. If you've other things to do and don't have anything further to add to your earlier comments, thanks again for the feedback. Euryalus (talk) 11:53, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • It wasn't criticism for not having edited the article. That's not the point that I made at all. It was pointing out that you had let yourself get distracted (a) by the personal attacks (as you did here) and (b) by the deletion nomination onto issues of notability. Yes, the personal attacks were wrong, and an AFD nomination to fix the BLP issues may well be the metaphorical sledgehammer and the metaphorical walnut (especially since the article is listed for attention at the BLP Noticeboard). But we should regard them as distractions from the real issue at hand, which is that the biography is problematic, and should be checked for neutrality and verifiability. Ignore the personal attacks. They are patently wrong, and do nothing but reflect badly upon the person who made them. Although I didn't criticize you for not editing the article, I did strongly urge you to do so. We are the people who are, rightly or wrongly, expected to step in, in these situations. I strongly urge both you and anyone else to take your tools and make that article better, mercilessly. I've done a bit, but I urge others to do more of the same, because I've certainly not completed the task, merely addressed some of the things that jumped right out at me when comparing article content against the sources that it cited. Uncle G (talk) 12:54, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK. Sorry I missed your point. I have a feeling we actually agree and the issue is really one of emphasis. I take your point that people were commenting on the notability of the subject and the personal attacks on the talk page when that time might productively have been spent actually improving the article and fixing/removing unsourced material. I don't necessarily see these other issues as distractions, but recognise there'as a primacy about BLP issues that should have ensured they were also addressed post haste. Thanks for taking the time to reply and I'll bear it in mind in future editing. Euryalus (talk) 13:11, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Article Deletion Squadron

Hey there! You might be interested in this new venture! The fightback starts here! Yeah! Wheelchair Epidemic (talk) 23:04, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another Thank you!

Big thank you for slicing through the knots I got myself into here.--Shirt58 (talk) 12:01, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AFD closures

Point noted, but I do have a query (see here). Cheers, Nja247 12:12, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvios by Footage

Wow ... all those articles you cited, Footage is the author and more or less the sole contributor. You think we should G12 the lot, or maybe hit them with {{copyvio}}? I've also proposed a community ban. Blueboy96 20:00, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had some time to sleep on it, and I'm pretty sure that these articles are G12able. Care to help me clean up the mess? My mouse finger's getting tired, even with Twinkle. Blueboy96 19:37, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Uncle G. You have new messages at AbsolutDan's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--AbsolutDan (talk) 21:37, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good to go

OK so I guess we are good to go with the sneaky vandalism. In no particular order:

  • BlueSquadronRaven is back to the "burn it with fire" edit summaries and AFD spamming
  • You aren't taking things to DRV even though they were only deleted because of the spammers
  • The spammers aren't googling before they vote, per WP:BEFORE
  • Your edit page is still tricking simpletons into violating the GFDL
  • list of characters in Atomic Betty is still not GFDL compliant, which shows how seriously you take it
  • My own right to attribution under the GFDL has been violated with a merge from France-Nepal relations
  • Atomic Dodger is still verifiable from a published source, and was only deleted to spite me and the other vandal who created it (or am I the same person?)

I'm sure I have other grievences to keep me motivated, digs about laughable combinations and obsessive editors will help.

Basically I feel that by not following its own rules, Wikipedia generates people who hate it, like me. This kind of institution is very, very foolish to think it can assume good faith. My goal is that when people see what I have been doing and why, they will be more inclined to support encyclopedias with some inherent reliability (and less dubious copyright status).

If you want me to stop you better get to work on these issues, and quickly, before my vandalism starts propagating to other language Wikipedias. DeviousMischievious (talk) 18:17, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS. this is unlimited sneaky vandalism not just the 10 I mentioned above.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Uncle_G/Archive/2010-09-11&oldid=287889935"