User talk:Testales

AV

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 03:47, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

"fans of a particular person"

I meant nothing disparaging with that phrase, just observing a general phenomenon. The area doesn't really matter: fans of a sports figure will argue that his image during his sporting days is critical, fans of an actor will argue that his appearance during a particular filming was critical, fans of a singer will argue that her appearance during the creation of an individual album was critical. I don't think "Japanese porn" is inherently less notable of a genre than any other (with the exception of the issue that a lot of these articles have sourcing problems, but that's a different issue). I can assure you that most of the images I have deleted or nominated for deletion are fair-use images used to illustrate the biographies of singers and Disney Channel stars.—Kww(talk) 05:00, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I am not mad at you because of this or something but as you threw that in again and it is also understandable to think I am complaining because images have been deleted of subjects where I am a fan of, I thought it would be a good idea to prove that this (at least this time ;) ) is not the case. On the other hand I am also convinced that you have should have a certain obsession to write a good article and that those "fans" are also often experts in their small area who after all share their knowledge even it is only about a console game. Now when I see that some people delete unblieveable amounts of content (without ever adding anything) just for not beeing perfectly sourced (if that is even possible in that area), lack (subjectivly seen) importance or could be deleted due to a very strict interpretation of a policy or guide that makes me a bit sad. Especially if the actual motivation is - as indicated by the guy at ANI - to remove topics that they do not like. If you look at the activies of most editors, there is a certain balance between deleting, fixing and adding. But I am just unsure about the motivation of people who only delete. Finally Wikipedia is not been build on deleting and even if it has grown I doubt that it follows the orginal idea to simply delete everything which is not perfect from start, especially if the deleting editor never even tries to improve it, always pointing at the contributor who is in most cases much less familiar with the many "rules" of Wikipedia. Aside the point that Wikipedia is not a RS either. Not all articles have the same importance and the same applies for all facts claimed, some will certainly be challenged and need a good sourcing and others are not THAT important. So there should be certain sensitivity when to enforce maximum pedantism and when not. What's for example the point to remove the eyecolor, birth location or even the birthday if it is not or only poorly sourced? If it is wrong, then be it. Nobody get's hurt. Some people seem to like to clear infoboxes because of that, no matter whether you can easily find the same information on many, many other sites which may be not perfectly reliable but work for the most cases. This refering to WP:V - but wouldn't be that against "If rules prevent you from improving Wikipedia, ignore them."? Especially if it comes to a point where a lady stumbles over her own article on Wikipedia, sees it full of errors, corrects them but gets reverted instantly, even though there was no really "contentious" data supplied. I do not expect we see her back and have doubts that the drastic and quick reverting has helped the project here, be there a COI or not. So it's more about the attitude than the rules. I also know that the requiements for BLP are higher for a reason but due to either the overly strict interpretation or total ignorance of a single word, the word "contentious" at least WP:P* has come to a total halt. Every IP who adds something gets simply reverted due to this or because of beeing "trivial". The only progress I see is with the Japanese articles and it's somewhat ridiculous to have detailed and well written articles (although POSSIBLY poorly sourced) about actors who are ONLY active and known in Japan while nearly everything else gets reduced to stubs. Even if I have absolutly no interesst in Japanese actors I have to say that IF I would be interessted, I would really enjoy reading those comprehensive articles. I also think even if they maybe poorly sourced, they do not contain material that I would declare as beeing contentious, that's simply another very elastic word. I have recently tried to find a more common base which kind of material to keep and which not, starting with the most easy part "Filmographies" but even this has already at least (conservatively estimated) caused at least like 20 A4 pages of discussion all in all (if it would be printed out) and still no result. So what I would like to see is some better base to decide when to keep something, especially if there is a such big difference from what can be read and understood by an unbiased new editor and the actual common practice like in the case of NFC. Testales (talk) 19:23, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

?

I dont understand ur point? --Vinie007 18:01, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

"Emri: Adelina" that's wrong. Nevermind can remove it myself but I thought you work in the albanian Wikipedia too, so I dropped you a note. Testales (talk) 01:03, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

When u will release the article? --Vinie007 23:00, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I currently can't as it still doesn't match the so called relevance criterias here. It may be a different case for the Albanian Wikipedia but I don't speak the language so I didn't edit anything there so far. As the current criteria here are mainly based on awards and I expect that there will be such awards before the end of the year I am still preparing an update. If that does not happen based on the current rules I must assume that the article I initially prepared is not wanted in the English Wikipedia and act accordingly... Testales (talk) 20:53, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Re Sarah Louise Young

Hi,

I'm new here. I found that the Sarah Louise Young page had been deleted, and when I investigated a bit discovered that it was because she was considered not notable. One of the criteria for notability was awards, so I searched for her name with 'awards' in Google, and found a French wikipedia page that listed some. I've added those to the entry you're working on. This might be enough to have it relisted. I hope I haven't gone against protocol in some way; if so, no offense intended. Fergus Velour (talk) 19:07, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I am fully aware of her awards and I can also remember quite some media presence. Maybe you should also read what I wrote to the closing administrator here. As I had expected that article was step by step deleted by certain "quality improving" people and finally considered as not notable. You can contact me also via email for further details. Bascially it's just hard to prove all the facts of the very nice article that it has been before especially when you look at the very strict rules for WP:BLP. So please check the history and see what and why it has been removed before simply adding back that kind of material. There is also a high chance that the same will happen to the article of her "predecessor". I found already some references as shown at the administrators talk page. If you are interessted I'd prefer that you contact me via e-mail ("E-mail this user" on the left) especially as I currently do not have much time for Wikipedia work. Testales (talk) 23:20, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

See e-mail. Note last sentence in particular. Fergus Velour (talk) 17:06, 8 October 2010 (UTC)