Talk:Felix Aderca

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Article assessment[edit]

It appears that a single reviewer marked this as an A-class article across all WikiProjects. Per WP:ACLASS, "Assessing an article as A-Class requires more than one reviewer." I see no evidence that other reviewers were consulted, so I am downgrading the assessment to B-class, which is generally the highest rating that a single reviewer can give. I have not reviewed this article myself, and I offer no opinion as to whether this article is legitimately B-class, whether it should be assessed lower (e.g. C-class), or whether it is suitable for a Good Article, A-class, or Featured Article nomination. cmadler (talk) 12:46, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Massive cuts in text etc.[edit]

This article has been recently hacked by what I can only presume is an inexperienced editor, who proceeded to remove the redlinks (that stale, obnoxious debate, presuming that editors who create the new articles should go and find all mentions of said articles in various texts, instead of just filling the one link!) and cut down much referenced text, with said references, as "speculation". S/he also added "who" tags after authors who were cited several times in the text, without noticing that these authors had already been identified upon first mention -- for instance, "literary historian Paul Cernat", upon first mention, and with a link that would permit the reader to get more information should anyone actually write the article. What was also hard to understand was the abrupt manner in which the lead was whittled down, even though this one does in fact fit with the specific requirement in the manual of style: namely, that the lead is supposed to summarize the article text.

The article may be a bit on the long side, but, seriously, it doesn't follow that we should strive to cut the narrative into arbitrary parts just to satisfy those editors who venture here and can't be bothered to read through a long text. I reverted. If you have any objections, please bring them up on the talk page.Dahn (talk) 12:25, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I have been editing for quite some time so I am not inexperienced. I did not remove all the redlinks but most as they are distracting and unprofessional. Why don't you cite me some editing rule that states that redlinks stay around forever? Actually I can be bothered to read through a long text, which is why I know the article needs to be pruned. It is also lazy editing to make a blanket revert. Do the heavy lifting and improve the article. Quis separabit? 18:02, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
There is no way in which you can disguise arbitrarily removing content as an improvement. So then, let's start here: what was your rationale for removing the redlinks? (And no, claiming that there is no rule *for* having those redlinks "forever" is not a rationale. It is nonsense.) Dahn (talk) 18:04, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
As for my rationale for keeping them -- not only did I write and research the text you're "pruning" (meaning that I do have some clue as to why those redlinks are not trivial, whereas yours is so far an argument from ignorance), but there is no decent way of showing you how they fit with the text other than writing all those articles at once. Which I can't possibly do on a whim! But other than that, once the content, for which you claim no proof of relevancy, is gone, there is no way of restoring it other than, guess what, reverting your edit... Dahn (talk) 18:08, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
And furthermore, your WP:BOLD is out of place here (and merely callous), as should have been shown to you by the fact that this content was found quite satisfactory by its past reviewers. Dahn (talk) 18:10, 15 August 2013 (UTC)


Response[edit]

  • "rv arbitrary edits - random redlink removal, random cuts of sourced material, random (and unexplained) tagging, random distortions to the bibliography, random additions of whimsical categories, you get the point)"
    • a) "random redlink removal": I agree that I should have deleted all the redlinks but this takes a lot of time. Most of these redlinks have been around awhile and show no indication they are going to be turned into articles, so the notability of the individuals in question is seriously questionable. What's more, deleteing the redwikilink is not the same as deleting the name of the person in question. I think it's troubling when there are more redlinks than non-redlinks in an article of this length, and distracting as well. There is no requirement on Wikipedia that redlinks stay around forever.
      • b) "random cuts of sourced material" -- the only material I cut was text which was/is either POV, conjecture, trivial, redundant, unsourced or outdated. Show me otherwise.
        • c) "random (and unexplained) tagging" -- how can a tag be unexplained?; it's either "when", "why", "who", etc. except for the verylong article and neutrality tags which I added which were removed by the last editor, and which I will restore as they are indispensible to this article.
          • d) "random additions of whimsical categories" -- no idea what you are talking about. What "whimsical categories"?
            • In sum, terms like "arbitrary", "random" and "whimsical" are entirely subjective and in the eye of the editor. This article is like a garden left untended for years or a building with a condemned sign in its front window. Benign neglect is no longer an option. I have every intention of continuing to edit this article, beginning with the "random redlink removal", which clearly means that either all or none of the redlinks should be removed. I opt for the former, but I'll need time to get around to it. Quis separabit? 20:36, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

1) Do see WP:REDYES - "Create red links everywhere they are relevant to the context for terms that should exist in the encyclopedia."

See also WP:DEADLINE - "Wikipedia is not working to a deadline."

What troubles or distracts you is of no consequence; we follow policy, not whim. Just for the record, I took all the redlinks from a random section and showed that they do refer to plausibly notable entities. Clearly you have not spent much time actually researching the notability of these terms.

2) Your assertion that the text is "POV, conjecture, trivial, redundant, unsourced or outdated" is, as you would put it, "entirely subjective and in the eye of the editor".

Where do you see unsourced content? Where are there redundancies? What sections are outdated? What do you find trivial?

3) You have not raised claims of a lack of neutrality. And surely you know from WP:LENGTH that the solution to overlength is splitting, not cutting sourced material. I see no need for either a split or cuts, but you may as well go through the motions of proposing a split first.

4) Well, just one, really - Category:Deaths from neurological disease is a duplicate of Category:Deaths from brain tumor. - Biruitorul Talk 01:43, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

  • Thanking Biruitorul for jumping in to sort this issue out, I would like to see some evidence, some concern based on some evidence, that this properly sourced, properly cited and attributed, article, is in any way in contradiction with wikipedia's policies on neutrality. Some semblance of a debate, not just a self-sourced, self-important, verdict on what should go and should not go into the article. (I will ignore the claim that any info on someone who has been dead for 60 years is somehow "outdated". It is so puerile an argument that it would not honor the issuer if we were to take it as anything other than some minor faux-pas.) Dahn (talk) 11:30, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Felix Aderca. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:31, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Felix Aderca. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:52, 29 September 2017 (UTC)