User talk:NE Ent

	; Archives (Index) ;
	Meet the Press; 2008/December; 2014; 2009; 2010; 2011; 2012; 2013; 2015; 2016; 2017; 2018; 2019; 2020; 2021; 2022; 2023; 2024;

Last word: MediaWiki message delivery (talk).

To do

And speaking of being hasty... somebody with a very similar set of numerals to my own, posted their first AN/I thread, and got it closed as poor behavior, by an ent. Ahem. :-) So at the risk of finding out the speed at which ents are rumoured to grow angry has changed, I will say, that I really did see that unorthodox move as the best way to de-escalate. Sure, it has now backfired, but at least there is one kind of poor behavior I know not to repeat in the future: never post to AN/I until really ready. I dislike that outcome, obviously, partly because I didn't get the specific advice I was after, but also because I don't really have much hope that the situation on the talkpage in question will de-escalate any time soon. I will try not to let it grow worse, but I think this is one of those articles where fundamental disagreements about What Should Be In The Encyclopedia start to rub people wrong. I've just arrived there, and my own self-botched AN/I thread was the first noticeboard-dramah of 2015. But there was plenty of dramah in 2014, including a 'voluntary' mainspace-only-t-ban, and a quasi-related desysop. The contents of mainspace never reached broad consensus, which is to say *outside* the local article-talkpage consensus; thus, the article just became a DMZ-article, waiting for somebody to stumble into it. Moi, apparently.

Do you have any ent-wisdom to offer, about how I ought to have gone about trying to improve the situation (aka alternative moves I could have made besides posting to AN/I at all), or about what I ought to try going forward? If not (or if it will take some ruminating-time) that is okay. Generic advice, like "follow the pillars" is also fine as far as it goes, but everybody there thinks they *are* following the pillars. So, I specifically came to AN/I, rather than going to some admin that I already happened to know, because I wanted to avoid the appearance of pulling in "my clique" to help me "win" the wiki-battle. And of course, immediately got accused that my AN/I post was attempting to "win" the content-dispute. Sigh. :-) Anyways, if you don't wanna mess with this situation, no hard feelings whatsoever, I'm sure it will all work out in the long run. Best, 75.108.94.227 (talk) 11:09, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you can provide a link to the AN/I post I'll review it when I get a chance (we may be talking a week or so). NE Ent 11:28, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NORUSH aka WP:DoNotBeHasty. Here is your close.[1] Here is the brief archived thread, though I don't think it is very helpful for you to see it again, since you already saw it, and closed it as poor behavior. :-) My question is, since posting to AN/I was the wrong move, what would have been the right move, or at least, a not-poor move? Taking the specific source-question to RSN? Taking the specific BLP-question to BLPN? Just start going source-by-source, and adding one sentence per source to mainspace, to see what gets reverted, and what does not? There are too many people involved for 3o, and not enough people involved for arbcom, thankfully. :-) My other option, that I did seriously consider, was nominating for AfD#3, but that seems a bit pointy, since there are so many sources at the moment. The usual way to attract attention is to mark the article as a stub, and advertise it at the appropriate wikiprojects, but that's also been attempted (albeit not by me). I could open an RfC up, as the next phase; WP:DR would be logical, in theory, but it only works if there is a possibility of compromise.[2] There's already been plenty of talkpage discussion, and I don't expect longer and deeper discussion will help, though possibly metronome-edits to mainspace would help. I'm planning on checking some other encyclopedia, spaketh not their vile names here on-wiki o'course, to see if they have child prodigy articles, and if so what depth. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 01:40, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, Jacob Barnett is weird; an article with nothing notable in it about a person who became notable for stuff we're not going to put on-wiki. Another Afd so soon would be pointy. You tried to source it, there was a pretty clear consensus against doing so, so you just move on. Overall Wikipedia the encyclopedia is pretty darn good, in specific pockets, not so much. And Wikipedia: the project is wikt:sausage factory (third definition). NE Ent 22:57, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will first note, that I found it amusing, that your advice boils down to the idea that I ought to make like a tree and leaf. ;-) But that seems the wrong way to improve wikipedia... this specific pocket needs improving, and moreover, the general trend of deleting reliably-sourced material, which I find extremely worrisome, is not just manifesting itself in this specific article. My question is, what procedure should I follow to improve the article, not what procedure I should follow under the assumption that no further improvement is possible. And, uh, yes, I 'tried' to source the article, as the first step towards improvement.

There are four sources left in mainspace: PsychologyToday, Skeptic, CBS, and Maclean's. Not in mainspace, same publishers: two more CBS pieces (one deleted), and six more Maclean's pieces. Also not in mainspace: two BBC pieces (one deleted), two CTV pieces (one deleted), six HuffPo pieces (one deleted), Discover (deleted), Time (deleted), TheTimes (deleted), Slate (deleted), et cetera. Mentioned at AfD#2, but never mainspaced that I noticed: two ABC pieces, two UsaToday/IndyStar pieces, TheSpectator, CBC, TorontoStar, etc. New ones I found myself, whilst resurrecting the deleted and elided refs: UPI, Variety, NY Daily News, Mirror, Globe & Mail, bunch of foreign-language-press-coverage, etc. That list is why AfD#3 would be point-y; the timespan since AfD#2 seems relatively minor by comparison.

All nominally satisfy WP:RS, no question about it. Sure, some bits of them are clickbait, sensationalism, WP:CRYSTAL, retractions, or whatever. Those bits ought be elided. But that's no excuse to delete the sources en masse, and thereby also delete every boring cold hard just-the-facts sentence said sources also back, right? Baby; bathwater. And yet, the local consensus is to delete the sources, and all sentences backed by them... which includes the deletion of "stuff we're not going to put on-wiki" that you allude unto, but goes waaaay beyond that, to also delete plenty of stuff we ought to be putting on-wiki.

To keep this meta-discussion we are having concrete, yet avoid delving into the oh-so-controversial stuff about Barnett, I suggest we switch gears briefly to another child prodigy article, Michael Kearney, which is as yet WP:NOTFINISHED. I have made some improvements, to my wiki-eyes anyways; I'd like to know what I ought have done differently, if anything, in your opinion.

Here is the article in 2005,[3] just after bangkeep,[4] with two refs (SatEvePost'96 TN'01) and 366 words.
Second theoretical-deletion-discussion in 2009.[5]
Here is a much-improved version from 2014,[6] with four new refs (LATimes'95 AP'98 MTSU'02 ABC'05) and 381 words.
I expanded it to 614 words,[7] adding another handful of refs (NYT'02 BizJournals'06 WinnipegFreePress'06 HuffPo'10 BostonGlobe'10 AOLnews'14).

Now of course, it could still use further improvement, for instance, re-adding SatEvePost'96 that was deleted at some point during the past decade,[8] or trimming some of the bloat. But trimming it back to 150 words would not be an improvement, right? Deleting ten of the twelve refs would also not be an improvement. Did my added sources or my expanded body-prose hurt the encyclopedia, over at Michael Kearney? If so, please show me where I goofed.

p.s. By way of contrast, see also Sheldon Cooper, the fictional child prodigy, with 3188 words of body-prose, backed by a dozen non-self-published general-readership refs including two LATimes, two ChicagoTribune, NewYorkMag, WinnipegFreePress, TorontoStar, BostonGlobe, Slate, PsychologyToday, StarLedger, NASA, SmithsonianMag, 3NEWSnewZealand; another dozen trade-zine refs include four IGN, two EntertainmentWeekly, two Variety, two AvClub, TvSquad, and TvGuide. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 19:16, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You seemed to have not registered the "just move on." The essential nature of the Wikipedia collaborative nature is that often you have to simply accept your viewpoint will not prevail in a certain context. This isn't a big deal; there's no shortage of tasks to be done, so you just go find something else to do. 02:15, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

No, I caught your drift. See first sentence of my reply ("your advice boils down the idea that I ought to make like a tree and leaf.") And I may decide to do so, or I may decide, per my second and subsequent sentences, to pull rank and do an XKCD thing instead, adding the unused WP:SOURCES into mainspace once a day, to see whether local consensus to delete dozens of nominally-wiki-reliable cites can survive wider WP:RSN scrutiny. Anyways, if you wish to discuss Barnett, or Kearney, or my as-yet-unanswered-questions about the AN/I procedures and feasible alternatives thereto, I'm still open to suggestions, but if so please leave a talkback-note on my usertalk. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 21:14, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chew on this!

With regard to your edit summary here, I don't think you should be encouraging people to chew bacca. It's a disgusting habit and can lead to cancer of the mouth and throat. EEng (talk) 03:00, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why

Why did you delete my ANI report on Dr Blofeld? You removed the entire thread. Why????? Caden ^cool 22:09, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He didn't remove it. He closed and hatted it. Caden, the comment in question has been removed, so there's no reason to keep things going. Sarah ^(talk) 22:12, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on 'List of best-selling girl groups'

Thank you for closing this discussion – I apologise for not making a clear statement when I opened the RfC: perhaps that would have led to a clearer consensus, but as you have noted, few people wanted to take part in the discussion, but there are many people keen to keep the article, without actually explaining why and how useful it actually is. I suspect there might be a lot of angry editors at the removal of the overall list at the top (particularly from Korea where they seem to be very keen to have the data included), but frankly it was the most problematic part of the article and most of the sources used for sales figures were either dubious or dead links, so it was going to be impossible ever to keep it updated. I just hope you don't get a lot of hate mail as a result of your action... Thanks. Richard3120 (talk) 03:12, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. No mail yet. NE Ent 02:08, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbReq

? Maybe adding some filler that you will be adding a comment later, like NYB did, might make it look less weird. John Carter (talk) 20:56, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've actually been doing that for years; I don't see why I would want to waste my time writing and your time reading "This is only drill. In the event of an actual comment ... 21:09, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Dewani

For a hasty and un-ent-like filing at WP:AN admittedly without having read the history of the article.

Whack!
You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know you did something silly.

Robert McClenon (talk) 17:21, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vested contributors arbitration case opened

You may opt-out of future notifications related to this case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Vested contributors/Notification list. You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Example. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Example/Evidence. Please add your evidence by November 5, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Example/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 01:19, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]