Jump to content

User talk:SoWhy

Page contents not supported in other languages.
This user has administrator privileges on the English Wikipedia.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Phillippe de Angelus (talk | contribs) at 22:52, 23 July 2010 (→‎Psychography or Authomatic Writing.: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

SOWHY's talk page
Click here to leave a message.
Messages on this talk page are archived after 1 week.
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33 // Index



Psychography or Automatic Writing

In regards to your deletion of the article "Psychography", I believe you were mistaken. A few months ago, I was surprised to find such a complete article about Psychography in the english wikipedia. Positively surprised. I'm an expert in Psychography, and the article showed us the complete picture of the science of Psychography.

Last week, I search for "Psychography" again, and all Wikipedia showed me was a redirection to Automatic Writing - a very small, incorrect and incomplete article. I didn't understand what happened. What I would suggest is that wikipedia return the "Psychography" article as it was before: complete. And REDIRECT the Automatic Writing article to the Psychography article.

Allow me to explain: Psychography is the larger branch, to which Automatic Writing is just a small part. Psychography encompasses Automatic Writing, Semi-Automatic Writing, Mechanical Writing and Inspired Writing. For this reason, it is more correct to make Automatic Writing a part of the Psychography article, and not the other way around.

Not doing this would be a loss to Wikipedia, since it will deny its users access to complete information.

I hope we can get along, my friend. I respect you very much as an editor. Thank you for your time! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phillippe de Angelus (talk • contribs) 22:50, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 July 4

As regards your close, I'm a little confused as to how one could "allow re-listing" on a deleted article? Do we allow AfDs on deleted articles? Surely the method is to userfy, fix problems, and then go back to DRV? (Note:you didn't re-delete the article, so I did). Black Kite (t) (c) 00:28, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you're suggesting that we take further action to clarify the situation, can you please be a little more clear about what that action is? As Black Kite notes, we can't create an AfD on a currently deleted article, can we? My view is that the deletion should be overturned. But what avenue exists to try and obtain that result? - Lisa (talk - contribs) 02:57, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This was a special situation, so it might be more of a WP:IAR solution than people expect from me. AFD is the venue to discuss whether an article should exist on this project. Logically, this means that the article exists at the beginning of the process but may not exist anymore at the end of it. But just as MFD or RFA processes have been used to handle special situations (like recall or reconfirmation RFAs where a user starts as an admin but may end not being one), I think we can use AFD in this special situation for the reversed situation where an article has been deleted already.
Userfying and fixing problems are of course required but DRV is by definition created to review deletion decisions, not to review the merits of an article itself; people do often point out that DRV is not AFDv2 and they have done so in this discussion as well. Any discussion of the article's content should thus be avoided at DRV. This leaves us wanting for an avenue for those rare cases where further discussion is required but simply recreating an improved article would not be possible. I think this discussion should be held at the same place as the discussion to delete the article in the first place, a solution that both satisfies those who argued (correctly) that the deletion itself, based on the consensus in the first AFD should be endorsed and those who (correctly) pointed out that further content-related reasons should have been considered in the discussion and that further discussion (especially considering another article that was merged to the first one and where the content was now lost) is essential to reach a correct decision whether the article should exist on this project.
I could sympathize with those who argued to overturn the deletion itself but the AFD as it was held was closed correctly. As such, I think taking it back to AFD is the best way to go forward, even if the article is currently deleted. Special situations sometimes (rarely!) need a more creative approach and as AFD is the place to discuss whether an article should exist, I think it's the best place to discuss the merits of this article based on the new, content-related arguments presented at DRV. It was more of a procedural suggestion though. Consensus was clearly to re-discuss this article's existence but also that the decision itself was not incorrect, so the only question was where to have this second discussion and AFD is suited best for having content-related discussions.
(cue for trouts)
Regards SoWhy 09:05, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please userfy Criticism of The New York Times for me so I can address concerns. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:45, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done to User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/New York Times controversies. Regards SoWhy 10:22, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I note that this article is now back in main space at New York Times controversies. Do we need a procedural AfD on this or should it be deleted under G4? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:11, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since the discussion at DRV clearly showed that further discussion is desired and the fact that Richard Arthur Norton as an experienced editor probably would not move back an article that is essentially the same and thus eligible for G4 deletion, I would recommend to take it back to AFD and notify all participants at the previous AFD and at the DRV with a neutral message, so we can reach a clear and well-discussed consensus in that discussion. Regards SoWhy 21:14, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Probably? This is the only change since the pre-AfD version. T. Canens (talk) 21:20, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot force other admins to act the way I think a situation should be handled. I think the clear consensus at DRV that further discussion is required because it would be beneficial to the project means that it should have been brought back to AFD but I cannot force others to do so. I probably made a mistake when closing the DRV the way I did. I tried to find a solution that mirrors consensus exactly but it seems to have failed to do so. I should have closed it as "overturn to relist", then we would have the second AFD without any fuss. Mea culpa. Regards SoWhy 06:08, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your reasoning that led to this closure. I was intending to take this to AfD but I see it has now been G4ed. I think the advice given by DGG at User talk:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )#NYT is the wisest and simplest now. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:24, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Joke

I take it you have never heard of JFK's "Ich bin ein Berliner" speech? Since this is the third time I've been reverted I'll just ask Jimmy if he wants it.Marcus Qwertyus (signs his posts) 20:38, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I have. I'm German after all. But it's impolite to add jokes to other people's pages unless they have explicitly expressed that they want it. After all, people reading the page might think Jimbo wrote it and it should be his decision whether people should think that. Regards SoWhy 20:47, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm puzzled

I know from experience that you are one of the more thoughtful Wikipedia editors, willing to examine evidence rather than leap to conclusions, so I'm very puzzled by this edit. I can only assume that you couldn't understand most of the sources linked by the Google News search in your deletion rationale, but you shouldn't be presenting things that you don't understand as evidence in favour of any position, and in particular in favour of the position implied by the WP:PROD tag that this is an uncontroversial candidate for deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:01, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I used the prod tag is exactly because I thought that another pair of eyes may be needed. I think that the sources that I could find are insufficient to satisfy the relevant notability guidelines but if you disagree, you are of course welcome to do so. In fact, I am more than willing to admit that I can and will be wrong sometimes and if this is one of those times, I'm happy that you spotted it. So thanks for telling me. I'll try to take a closer look when I get home. Regards SWM (SoWhy[on]Mobile) 07:29, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 July 2010

user:SWM rename status

Hello, did you make any progress with your quest to claim and unify that username? The request currently remains open on Meta. Cheers, –SJ+ 00:59, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reminder, I had almost forgotten about it. Regards SoWhy 06:09, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response

I replied to you on my talk page, but also posted my reasoning on the Project page. Str1977 (talk) 20:32, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for telling me and posting to the project page. Let's see what the others say about it. Please remember to use edit summaries with all your edits, it will help avoiding confusion. Regards SoWhy 20:39, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rachael Faye HIll

Hi,

I have seen that you have decided to endorse the deletion of the Rachael Faye Hill article. I was wondering how you came to this conclusion as there was no consensus to delete the article in the first place? There is also on-going, large scale media coverage that moves this article away from the BLP1E argument.

Also, in the article above this DrV, Milowent overturned a deletion with the following explanation:

Overturn: There was no consensus to delete this article. The closing admin's opinion that deletion was appropriate is a valid opinion, but the sum of good faith editor contributions to the discussion did not approve deletion - Milowent.

This is exactly the same situation as with the Rachael Faye Hill article - no consensus was reached at either the AfD or DrV stages, so how can you move to delete the article? There are numerous media references and sources that give the article notability.

I would really appreciate this page being reinstated as other editors and myself feel that the article gained a suitable level of notability and the event was of a significant level.

Please please!

Sarah x CrazyMiner (talk) 22:16, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Psychography or Authomatic Writing.

Hello, my friend. My name is Phillippe de Angelus, your humble servant.

In regards to your deletion of the article "Psychography", I believe you were mistaken. A few months ago, I was surprised to find such a complete article about Psychography in the english wikipedia. Positively surprised. I'm an expert in Psychography, and the article showed us the complete picture of the science of Psychography.

Last week, I search for "Psychography" again, and all Wikipedia showed me was a redirection to Automatic Writing - a very small, incorrect and incomplete article. I didn't understand what happened. What I would suggest is that wikipedia return the "Psychography" article as it was before: complete. And REDIRECT the Automatic Writing article to the Psychography article.

Allow me to explain: Psychography is the larger branch, to which Automatic Writing is just a small part. Psychography encompasses Automatic Writing, Semi-Automatic Writing, Mechanical Writing and Inspired Writing. For this reason, it is more correct to make Automatic Writing a part of the Psychography article, and not the other way around.

Not doing this would be a loss to Wikipedia, since it will deny its users access to complete information.

I hope we can get along, my friend. I respect you very much as an editor. Thank you for your time!

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SoWhy&oldid=375115787"