Jump to content

User talk:Unbroken Chain

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Firewindwik (talk | contribs) at 16:13, 27 February 2010 (→Outloud). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Please do not feed the trolls.

Recent Changes

List of abbreviations (help):
D
Edit made at Wikidata
r
Edit flagged by ORES
N
New page
m
Minor edit
b
Bot edit
(±123)
Page byte size change

11 November 2024

New Articles

11 November 2024


Outloud

i am not shure why you added the outloud article for delete, can you plz explane why and how i can backup the article more. --Firewindwik (talk) 15:17, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I've added a few refs try again, and if it is still not good enought let me know. --Firewindwik (talk) 16:13, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you very much for the beautiful barnstar. It was an honour. Take care and keep up the great work. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 02:17, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Daphne Caruana Galizia

Exactly who is it that I am supposed to have insulted. Also, you did not provide any evidence whatsoever to dispute the sources I provided before the page was deleted. You have to realise that it is inevitable that the page will come back. You can only suppress information for so long. How on earth were my comments disruptive? You disputed referenced news reports from a national newspaper that been providing objective, independent news for 85 years. I asked for clarification on why these sources were being disputed. I am "warned" for being disruptive! What did I disrupt exactly? Qattusu (talk) 11:05, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What information? We clearly outlined that what you provided did not meet Wikipedia's requirements. Did you read anything we linked to you regarding official policy? If you did, then you're just stubborn and disruptive. If you didn't, then you're genuinely ignorant and disruptive. The horse is dead. Walk away. Go back to the Maltese Wikipedia, where they obviously seem to care nothing for veracity and integrity. Bring this subject back, and I'll personally pursue blocking you for disruption. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 11:17, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why on earth are you casting slurs on the Maltese wikipedia? It contains no references at all to the events that you consider contentious. None whatsoever. Or are you saying that the Maltese wikipedia lacks "veracity and integrity" because it includes an article about a prominent Maltese person? Isn't that a bit unfair? This is just hilarious. You have no idea at all what the article in Maltese on Maltese wikipedia says, do you? You just think it says something and that is enough for you to slur it! Incredible. It is actually just a translation of the previous English entry about the subject and says nothing at all about the most recent events! Nothing at all and yet you describe it as lacking "veracity and integrity"! Qattusu (talk) 12:23, 26 February 2010 (UTC) Qattusu (talk) 12:40, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think either of my comments constitute anything as insulting as your friend CobaltBlueTony™'s above, telling someone that they are going to "pursue" me for posting this article and telling me to go back to the Maltese wikipedia, which he then describes as lacking "veracity and integrity" for no reason I can figure out. Its funny that CobaltBlueTony™ is going to track me down and pursue me for posting articles which don't meet what he reckons are the standards required of a wikipedia article because I had a quick look at one of his articles, at random. I looked at the one about a guy called Ramon L. Posel. No, me neither. An estate agent and "art cinema propoent" (whatever that is). Turns out that there is not a single reference on that article that checks out. To be fair, there are only three. One is to some "Philadephia Bourse" site, where I can't find any mention of this Posel guy. Of the two external links, one says "Page Not Found" and the other is to some "Landmarks Theatres" site where you can check out what's on at the Ritz cinema tonight! Not a single reference to an external link even proving the existence of Ramon L. Posel. Not one. Nothing. How many sourced rerefences did I provide from national news organisations (many are on my talkpage)? About thirty. How many sourced references did CobaltBlueTony™ provide from anywhere at all? None. How many google hits does Posel get? 1,190. And Daphne Caruana Galizia? 12,300. Ten times the amount. But the Caruana Galizia article is gone but good old Ramon L. Posel gets to stay! Here's another article about Caruana Galizia, this time from the editorial of The Malta Independent newspaper stored on the website of the Department of Information - that is a part of the government of Malta. Seriously, if you do not accept the government of Malta as a source then you really will have to delete the article about Malta. And maybe when you are done doing that you can send some planes over to bomb it out of existence. Anyway, the article describes Caruana Galizia as someone who "has been writing in public for a number of years, and while many read her writings, she has been controversial too many times in the past". But yeah, I am sure CobaltBlueTony™ is right. There isn't space on wikipedia for well-known Maltese personalities. They've got to make way for the Ramon L. Posels of the world. Shame he doesn't have any references on Posel or any proof that he actually existed but that doesn't matter. Posel is an American, right? This is just straight forward racism. There was absolutely no justification in deleting that article whatsoever. And you are the ones saying that you have been insulted by me? I may as well leave it for someone else to start the article. I have spent enough time on something for it to just be deleted and I don't really want to play cat and mouse games with someone on the internet who has vowed to "pursue" me. What an insight into how this place works though! I offered to edit the article down several times and I produced reference after reference after reference but there were people hellbent on deleting it. And guess what? The guy who proposed it for deletion has admitted that it was the subject of the article herself that prompted him to propose it for deletion! A great day for wikipedia when powerful people can dupe "editors" into deleting referenced, sourced, verifiable and widely reported stuff they don't like written about them from the site! Give each other slaps on the back and have a drink to the ghost of Ramon L. Posel tonight guys! Guess what though -- you have all wasted your time. The article will come back. It is bound to. I may as well just go and delete the article about Jerry Garcia. People will just put it back. That is the thing about "notable" people you didn't take on board: people take "note" of when they are missing from wikipedia! What a waste of everyone's time this is. Qattusu (talk) 18:08, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • OK, well I will consider rweriting it when I have the time. I can see that some people are at least genuine, if misguided in my opinion. Thanks for that, though this whole experience has been pretty bitter. What is the point of putting time and effort into something for someone who doesn`t know anything about the article to just come along in a few months and delete it? There was just no justification in deleting that article. It wasn`t perfect but it certainly shouldn`t have been deleted. Qattusu (talk) 06:18, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Posel's page's links seem to have dried up. I'll have to work on that. Thanks for pointing it out in such a long, drawn-out, and mind-numbing tirade. FYI: Google hits is not a valid enumerator of notability-supporting links. Information can be copied around and regurgitated through blogs (which are not usually considered valid for WP:RS), which produce multiple hits through search engines but little else. Even the story about this Galizia person doesn't automatically amount to multiple mentions, as one event doth not a person notable make. I take back what I said about the Maltese Wikipedia: I know nothing about them, or why her Maltese Wikipedia page exists with only a link to her blog and a Daily Telegraph article that no longer exists somehow gives sufficient evidence of her notability. I don't even know how they feel about proving notability. It's their language encyclopedia, their laws they have to abide by, and their project. My objective is to support the English Wikipedia. You claimed to have met the criteria, but several users disagreed with you -- in fact, every other user commenting on the AfD disagreed! That is how Wikipedia works. Each user has demonstrated that they understand the notability policy and specifically how it relates living persons. Nearly all of your supposedly supportive references were about the event; none discussed her as inherently notable. FYI: you would find plenty of those references at the bottom of the Larry King page; your argument that the opening statement therein made an unsupported claim is nullified by the fact that nearly all opening statements on article of prominence make assertions that are amply covered in the bodies of those articles.

          To address your attitude here: you've made comments about others as prejudiced against Maltese-related topics and less apt than "the most obtuse pedant", to quote one of the more cutesy digs. As others have tried to inform you of the negative, personal effect you have had while pushing for this article, I won't rehash it all. Your frustrations have apparently led you to think that insults and condescending tones will win where your dispassionate approaches failed. It won't. So here's what you need to do. Help us by finding non-trivial discussions of how Galizia's work has impacted Malta: does she cause a stir, does she echo popular sentiments, do people comment about her and/or quote her to the point that other media outlets with whom she is not connected have directed serious and extensive coverage of her? Just two such veracious and completely independent sources will get you much farther than rehashing this one regrettable incident in which she is embroiled. Then let's review and see if we can come to a reasonable conclusion -- one that doesn't inspire such a backlash. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 21:26, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the thing -- you may know a lot about the notability policy but you are not correctly relating it to this subject. You are incorrect on several points of fact: ```not``` all of my references were related to the one incident and in fact it is misleading to refer to it as one incident anyway. There were a whole chain of events that took place that have resulted in the subject being charged for defamation of a magistrate. If every other user on the AfD disagreed then, sorry, every other user is wrong. It doesn`t matter how many people say the sun goes round the earth. If the article had not been deleted so quickly I might have been able to mobilise some Maltese people to comment on it and provide some more references denoting notability. That there is prejudice against Maltese topics is pretty much evident in the fact that the Posel page is still there and being "worked on" while the Caruana Galizia page is gone. All of this about how Caruana Galizia`s work has "impacted Malta", "echo popular sentiments" "" etc. are very obviously not required for the Posel article.　Besides, I have provided these sorts of references anyway: there is an editorial from a national newapaper referring to the controversy that she has caused over the years. This was published a full nine years before the events that have been in the media recently. Sorry if you find it offensive but are you really in a position to say which publications she is "connected with" or whether the sources I provided are "independent"? The subject is a freelance journalist so she is not employed by anyone. I don`t think wikipedia is really the place to speculate about who she is "connected with". As I have asked repeatedly, which Maltese media organisation would you find acceptably "independent" or "unconnected"? Why is The Times of Malta not considered reliable? I never seem to get an answer to that one. I guess it is easier just to delete than to engage in a proper debate where people actually respond to queries. I don`t mean you personally but the way the "discussion" went on that articles for deletion page was farcical. Just a simple question: which publication would you deem an acceptably reliable reference? No-one can answer it. And sorry to say this again but most of the people on that page had obviously not taken more than a cursory glance at the page before concluding that it was, to quote "defintely not about a notable person". Sorry, but that is just such a silly statement if you are coming from a Maltese perspective. It is not true that I am the only person who thinks the subject is notable. The article was there for two years and edited by dozens of people before recent events. The handful of people who went onto the "delete the article" page do not represent all of wikipedia. They seem to be regulars who gather to sit in judgement about articles; not a bad thing to do in itself but I would have thought that, in a case like this, they would have the basic humility to consult a Maltese person before casting judgement on deleting the article. I am not petitioning to have the Posel article deleted because, for all I know he was very famous in his field in his day. Other people should practise the same basic humility and prudence. Not to do so is arrogance and yes, borderline racist. The google thing is very much a side issue. I think google is a pretty good guide though I wasn`t saying it was an absolute determinant of notability. Your comments about people "going back to the Maltese wikipedia", though since retracted, were overtly racist, so again it is a bit rich for you to comment about ```my``` attitude. It was quite common for Maltese immigrants to be told to go back where they came from during the large influxes into Australia, the UK and North America between the wars, so your comments accurately echoed that sentiment. I have easily received more insults than I have dished out so lets not go overboard in critiquing my attitude. Besides, your grounds for disputing the veracity of Maltese wikipedia (the fact that the only external, independent link has expired) are precisely my grounds for pulling up your Posel article. I would imagine that the Daphne Caruana Galizia article is not up for deletion there because the people on that site know full well that she is a very notable personality and that someone will get round to updating it at some point. You seem to know a lot about the rules of wikipedia but I don`t think you always abide by the spirit of it. Assume good faith. People have made a lot of assumptions about that article but I don`t think any have really delved into the subject properly. The article could certainly have been improved, which I set about doing before I was told to let the "community" decide what happens to it. What you think of my "attitude" shouldn`t really come into it. This should be about recording the truth, not about personal gripes. People have accused me of having an agenda but the person who proposed the article for deletion has since admitted that the subject of the article herself requested him to do so. He said that some details should not included because spousal abuse is "trivial". It is a sad day when an editor agrees to delete negative news about someone powerful because he thinks spousal abuse is trivial. Who is it that has the agenda here? Qattusu (talk) 06:04, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am truly sorry to have resembled a racist, but the lack of veracity for that article on the Maltese Wikipedia remains telling. (Seeing as I wouldn't know a Maltese person if I fell over them, it's kinda hard for me to actually try to target them based on their ethnicity, now isn't it?) For living people that are "obviously notable" on many other versions of Wikipedia (and especially if those people are embroiled in a highly publicized legal issue), tons of people have tons to say about them, and content disputes are the norm. The fact that her article suffered a mere nine edits after its creation in Maltese in the midst of something supposedly so headline-grabbing speaks volumes. Where are all these Maltese people you're hoping to rally? Why doesn't anyone react? Care? Join you in this dead-horse beating?
I actually won't answer that question. But the fact that no one else has joined you is bad for the article. If I'm the only one who cares about Posel, and can't find better links (now that the originals have deprecated) -- guess what? No matter how long it exists, eventually someone will come around to it and start demanding stricter application of Wikipedia's standards for multiple reliable independent sources. And If I can't deliver, as much as I am convinced that the person is notable, the article might suffer deletion. I've had my work deleted before; it's frustrating.
Attitude has a lot to do with how people perceive your contributions. It tends to inspire other users to apply Wikipedia's standards more strictly. Regarding The Times of Malta links: Short blurbs and quick news round-ups are rarely, if ever, considered in establishing notability; you linked to a few of those types of sources, so you should be aware that no one here will be influenced to support her meeting WP:BIO using those. The link, where you erroneously linked with a misleading headline text of "Storm whipped up by Caruana Galizia" was actually titled "GP takes John Dalli's seat in Parliament". The incident was not expounded upon, and Galizia's noteriety isn't even addressed there. This link is interesting, but again, notability isn't really established through some criminal matter. We need something that talks about her, in-depth. More than one source. More than her stirring up trouble. Even if her claim to notability ends up being that she stirs up trouble in the national politics of Malta, there should be more on that. Mr Borg's opinions are also interesting, but again, Galizia's notability is straining to come through here. I actually do suspect that she might meet a minimal threshold, but it's just not coming through in the links you've provided. Notability must come through to people not familiar with the subject. Through all of the links you've presented, a negative picture of Galizia is painted, and that is of serious concern. It seems as if this is the only information about her that suggests any sort of noteriety. That alone is a tough sell. As Orange Mike indicated, you have a user subpage to continue working on this. Rally others knowledgeable on the subject and try to paint a more well-rounded picture, first establishing that so many Maltese people know her and react to her, preferably from a source through which she has not published her work and therefore has a perceived conflict of interest. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 15:10, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Posel is indeed notable....I've added references to the page and reduced it to a stub. The article was not within wiki standards and a lot of the information couldn't be sourced but a google news search shows 20 years of coverage by a non connected entity. The main problem as I see it isn't thatyou sused the Times of Malta as the source, but the authors blog. Consider would the author say she was a douche bag? No that makes it not nuetral and thus not allowed. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:47, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Unbroken_Chain&oldid=346699708"