User talk:TParis
| This is TParis's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments. |
|
| Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 |
| If you have come here to change my opinion, be ready to also change yours. |
| USER PAGE | TALK PAGE | CONTRIBUTIONS | AWARDS | DASHBOARD | RECALL | MOTIVES | POLITICS | RTRC |
|
This page has archives. Sections may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Toolserver Edit Summary calculator feature request
For the first two stats listed[1], it would be helpful to show 2 digits of precision after the decimal point, and the actual counts in parentheses (with summaries/missing summaries). Example:
- Edit summary for all major edits: 100.00% (11230/0)
- Edit summary for all minor edits: 100.00% (112/0)
Cheers, Lexein (talk) 01:27, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Gangnam Style by country
Hello, this is regarding the article Gangnam Style by country. I believe that you made the decision to merge the article in good faith, but unfortunately I do not believe there ever was consensus for a merge (just 2 votes?), and my reasons for keeping the article were not even opposed (or even addressed) by the other users. I am strongly against a merge as per WP:SIZERULE, I have been contributing to that article in good faith for quite some time and I would have continued to do so had it not been nominated for deletion so I would appreciate if you would be more specific about your reason for merging it. To be clear, most users voting for delete couldn't even agree on the reason to delete it, so I dont understand what you mean by "doesn't quite justify a content fork per the opinions below". Whose opinion are you referring to? -A1candidate (talk) 20:57, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
- I read through this discussion and I have to agree with TParis, here. It isn't just that there were two merge votes but that the overall discussion meets the merge suggestion as not being notable for a content fork. I read that much from the first delete suggestion and the fact that even one keep votes seem to see it as trivial.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:31, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
- I think this just illustrates my point clearly - that there is no clear reason to delete it. Since Gangnam Style is very notable, it is only logical that Gangnam Style by country is notable. As I have said earlier (and which if you were to read the discussion again nobody ever bothered to read/address/oppose my reasoning) - This phenomenon passes the WP:10 year test and will be remembered for K-pop's (Korean pop) breakthrough in the US music market. Article should not be merged to Gangnam Style (almost 200 kB) as per WP:SIZERULE. Gangnam Style phenomenon has already been deleted and the main article is supposed to be a summary its too long to be merged together (even if you were to remove all trivial content) -A1candidate (talk) 21:41, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
- It isn't being deleted. A merge is simply moving the article to another space with a redirect. All of the history remains as well as the content (although with a merge there is always a chance that it may be edited down a bit).--Amadscientist (talk) 21:46, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
- Article should not be merged to Gangnam Style (almost 200 kB) as per WP:SIZERULE. Gangnam Style phenomenon has already been deleted and the main article is supposed to be a summary its too long to be merged together (even if you were to remove all trivial content) -A1candidate (talk) 21:50, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
- Unfortunately this is only a guideline and as the page states: "It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." It also states that the size is in reference to readable prose only. Besides that, there is a great deal of room to reduce the size of the Gangnam Style article. I fully support Tparis' decision to merge based on the discussion.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:00, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
- Content should not be removed from articles simply to reduce length, please be more specific on which parts/sections you believe should be removed (whether for supposedly trivial, irrelevant content or otherwise) -A1candidate (talk) 22:08, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
- You may discuss such subjects on the article's talkpage. You seem to be contradicting yourself at this point. If articles are not reduced just for size...why would you care if it is lenghtened? I think we've taken up enough space on TParis' talkpage.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:17, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
- My point is clear: There is no need for content reduction if the article wasn't merged in the first place. And there's no such thing as hogging up talkpages, I just want answers thats all. -A1candidate (talk) 22:30, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
- There are better subtopics of Gangam Style that can be split than this. You were very active on the AFD but your opinion didn't sway the consensus. There were only three !votes to keep the article, and six for it's removal. I read that as 6 people for removing the article and 5 people for keeping the content. The discussion supported keeping the content because there were sources, but there was nothing that justified this as it's own topic. I'm going to have to stand by this close.--v/r - TP 22:32, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
- Unfortuantely those users voting for delete have provided unspecific reasons. I know this is a very unpopular song created by an Anti-American singer, but I would have expected users to provide more specific reasons instead of repeatedly pointing out recentism (which I tried explaining why it isn't yet nobody cared to read what I wrote). -A1candidate (talk) 22:41, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
- I didn't see any reference to any of that in the AFD and that's quite a leap of bad faith to think that it played a part in anyone's opinion.--v/r - TP 22:43, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
- My point is that users cannot simply ignore another user's argument without even bothering to address it. If you were to look at an article-related discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Effects of Gangnam Style, everyone voted Merge, but no single soul even cared to give a reason, nor did anyone cared enough to oppose my reason for keeping, similar to this article's discussion -A1candidate (talk) 23:10, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
- Oh for heaven's sake......--Amadscientist (talk) 22:54, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
- Again, I would have been glad if you gave me a logical reason for deletion that actually took into consideration the text I wrote, but such an unconstructive comment like yours did nothing to steer the discussion in the right direction -A1candidate (talk) 17:59, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
- That's why they call it a discussion. I vocalised my astonishment at your accusations of editors. You just took it upon yourself to delete a post of another editor on this Admin/editors talkpage. What you feel was unconstructive, I felt was weel deserved surprise at what you wrote. As I said, it is innapropriate to delete posts made by another editor on someone else's talkpage.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:29, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
- Oh for heaven's sake -A1candidate (talk) 22:35, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
- That's why they call it a discussion. I vocalised my astonishment at your accusations of editors. You just took it upon yourself to delete a post of another editor on this Admin/editors talkpage. What you feel was unconstructive, I felt was weel deserved surprise at what you wrote. As I said, it is innapropriate to delete posts made by another editor on someone else's talkpage.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:29, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
- Again, I would have been glad if you gave me a logical reason for deletion that actually took into consideration the text I wrote, but such an unconstructive comment like yours did nothing to steer the discussion in the right direction -A1candidate (talk) 17:59, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
- I didn't see any reference to any of that in the AFD and that's quite a leap of bad faith to think that it played a part in anyone's opinion.--v/r - TP 22:43, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
- Unfortuantely those users voting for delete have provided unspecific reasons. I know this is a very unpopular song created by an Anti-American singer, but I would have expected users to provide more specific reasons instead of repeatedly pointing out recentism (which I tried explaining why it isn't yet nobody cared to read what I wrote). -A1candidate (talk) 22:41, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
- There are better subtopics of Gangam Style that can be split than this. You were very active on the AFD but your opinion didn't sway the consensus. There were only three !votes to keep the article, and six for it's removal. I read that as 6 people for removing the article and 5 people for keeping the content. The discussion supported keeping the content because there were sources, but there was nothing that justified this as it's own topic. I'm going to have to stand by this close.--v/r - TP 22:32, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
- My point is clear: There is no need for content reduction if the article wasn't merged in the first place. And there's no such thing as hogging up talkpages, I just want answers thats all. -A1candidate (talk) 22:30, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
- You may discuss such subjects on the article's talkpage. You seem to be contradicting yourself at this point. If articles are not reduced just for size...why would you care if it is lenghtened? I think we've taken up enough space on TParis' talkpage.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:17, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
- Content should not be removed from articles simply to reduce length, please be more specific on which parts/sections you believe should be removed (whether for supposedly trivial, irrelevant content or otherwise) -A1candidate (talk) 22:08, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
- Unfortunately this is only a guideline and as the page states: "It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." It also states that the size is in reference to readable prose only. Besides that, there is a great deal of room to reduce the size of the Gangnam Style article. I fully support Tparis' decision to merge based on the discussion.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:00, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
- Article should not be merged to Gangnam Style (almost 200 kB) as per WP:SIZERULE. Gangnam Style phenomenon has already been deleted and the main article is supposed to be a summary its too long to be merged together (even if you were to remove all trivial content) -A1candidate (talk) 21:50, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
- It isn't being deleted. A merge is simply moving the article to another space with a redirect. All of the history remains as well as the content (although with a merge there is always a chance that it may be edited down a bit).--Amadscientist (talk) 21:46, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
- I think this just illustrates my point clearly - that there is no clear reason to delete it. Since Gangnam Style is very notable, it is only logical that Gangnam Style by country is notable. As I have said earlier (and which if you were to read the discussion again nobody ever bothered to read/address/oppose my reasoning) - This phenomenon passes the WP:10 year test and will be remembered for K-pop's (Korean pop) breakthrough in the US music market. Article should not be merged to Gangnam Style (almost 200 kB) as per WP:SIZERULE. Gangnam Style phenomenon has already been deleted and the main article is supposed to be a summary its too long to be merged together (even if you were to remove all trivial content) -A1candidate (talk) 21:41, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
RfB?
Hello TParis, I'm AutomaticStrikeout (I'm sure you've seen me around, but we don't interact often). I'm just leaving you a note to ask if you are interested in running for cratship. I'm not offering a nomination, just wondering if you are interested. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 00:14, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
- I've certainly considered it, and it's a compliment to have it suggested, but I think I've been a bit of a controversial admin lately and I'm not sure I'd stand a decent chance when folks like The Blade get turned down. Besides, with the exception of RFA, I don't spend a lot of time in 'crat related areas such as renames and bots. Thanks though.--v/r - TP 00:45, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
- No problem. Thanks for the quick reply. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 03:39, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Your assistance please
You recently deleted the article on Samuel Risley, as WP:CSD#A7. Could you please point me to where the deletion of this article was discussed? Geo Swan (talk) 22:19, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
- Zoominfo has an extensive excerpt from Usque ad mare: a history of the Canadian Coast Guard...
- If you take a look at the excerpt you will see Risley is described as the most senior maritime inspector in Canada, and as a reformer. Geo Swan (talk) 22:38, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
- The article wasn't about that person. The article was about a Californian wine blogger born in Pennsylvania. It also contained a single negative sentence that wasn't sourced. It was originally tagged G10, but I felt the attacking sentence could've been removed. However, without that sentence, the article still fell ill of A7. If you want to write an article on the Canadian of the same name, feel free.--v/r - TP 00:05, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- That is odd. I recall looking up the original Samuel Risley, around the time I started the article on Samuel Risley (icebreaker). I recall starting a stub, circa 2005, when article standards were much looser. The odd thing is, that if I hadn't worked on that stub, Samuel Risley wouldn't be on my watchlist.
- The article wasn't about that person. The article was about a Californian wine blogger born in Pennsylvania. It also contained a single negative sentence that wasn't sourced. It was originally tagged G10, but I felt the attacking sentence could've been removed. However, without that sentence, the article still fell ill of A7. If you want to write an article on the Canadian of the same name, feel free.--v/r - TP 00:05, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- So, could you please take another look at the article's contribution history, and, if I did make any contribution to the article at all, userify its entire history to User:Geo Swan/userified/2012-12/Samuel Risley?
- Since standards are higher now, than 2005, if I don't think an article can be written that meets the standards of 2013, I will place a {{db-u1}} on it. Geo Swan (talk) 12:41, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
- There are five total edits to the article: four by User:Toddsmithactor who created it and one by User:TheLongTone who tagged it as CSD G10. None were made by you and there is nothing that would show it was moved to anything like the incubator at any point if there was an earlier article. I see you worked on CCGS_Samuel_Risley, and it holds a red link to this article, is there any chance you watchlisted the red link when you created this article back in 2005? You're welcome to have another admin double check that I'm not lying.--v/r - TP 15:08, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
- Since standards are higher now, than 2005, if I don't think an article can be written that meets the standards of 2013, I will place a {{db-u1}} on it. Geo Swan (talk) 12:41, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Close paraphrasing tag at Neoconservatism
TParis, you added a close paraphrasing template tag at Neoconservatism. Could you just leave an attendant explanation of why it was added on the talk page so it can be addressed. Much appreciated. Plot Spoiler (talk) 19:25, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry, I see you had already done so a few days before I started being active on the page. Apologies for the oversight. Plot Spoiler (talk) 19:26, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- Np.--v/r - TP 19:54, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
A barnstar
|
The Dispute Resolution Noticeboard Olive Branch | |
| You have a lot of patience. Thanks for the work dealing with the cycling issue (on AN/I). Amadscientist (talk) 20:22, 17 December 2012 (UTC) |
Any way to get our content back after deletion?
Our page (auburn alumni association) has been deleted. We need the content that was there so we can put it back online. Also, I don't think we should have been taken down as we had sources cited and facts stated correctly. Please advise.