User talk:Gavin.collins/Archive 11

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

Wiktionary usurption request

This note exists for the purpose of providing a diff on my home wiki to submit to the following projects for usurpation of the username Gavin.collins at[1].--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 10:04, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Email me

Gavin - I'd like to have an off-wiki dialog if possible, please email me. Thanks--Mike Cline (talk) 11:04, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Bring your comments here, and do so knowing I am quite happy to accept any form of criticism you wish to make. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 13:00, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Gavin - no criticism was forthcoming, just wanted to start an off-wiki dialog. --Mike Cline (talk) 13:03, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
I would prefer to keep our discussions here. I find the talk pages a useful reference, and I find that the ability to create links between articles and these discussions provides useful context. I presume you wish to discuss the debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of management consulting firms, as I can't think of any other issue that you might have a shared interest in. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 16:04, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Not really. as I can't think of any other issue that you might have a shared interest in- you might be surprised--Mike Cline (talk) 16:58, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Notability of small settlements

I saw that you contributed to the discussion at WT:N#Notability of small settlements, so you may be interested in a policy proposal I have made concerning this issue at the Village pump. Regards. Claritas (talk) 17:28, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for support in Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability I was undefblocked in the Russian Wikipedia for the source requesting. Falsificators does not like source requests becouse they can't find any good sources and wrote articles without it. They say: "source is not needed here". Administrators and referees with them in one company. X-romix (talk) 14:00, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

  • How unfair. At least you asked for sources. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 16:11, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
    • I think there is many political clowns who wanted to use Wikipedia for political purposes. They are not worried about finding the truth, but they wanted to obtaining grants. X-romix (talk) 09:38, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

How I think "notability" once worked

My recall of the history of N-without-V was that there was once looser standards for requiring V. It went like this: an editor writes and article and lacks V, some editors think the article is OK, maybe an editor or two thinks the claims to N lack V, even in the strong sense "even if you look for verifiability, it ain't there" -- in the old model consensus would overruled this objection (as in "give the article some time for its content to be verified"), and in the new model the objection is sustained. patsw (talk) 00:18, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

That sounds about right. Having read the discussion at WT:Importance, I think it gradually became the consensus that some form of evidence in the form of citations, rather than editorial opinion(s) on their own, would be used to decided whether a topic should get its own article. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 11:21, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
I think the other factor is that even in four or so years there is a profusion of sourcing on the web, an explosion of content on google books and other places, so verifiability becomes a quicker thing to determine than previously. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:28, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Climate Change Probation

Thanks for your contribution [2] which is very welcome. However the RFC is about the Climage Change Probation and your comment does not refer to the Climate Change Probation in any obvious way. Perhaps you might clarify this so that it is clearer to the reader? Clarifying your comment is easier now than after lots of people have signed it. Cordially --BozMo talk 10:17, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

What would you describe as an obvious way? What issues would you like to see addressed? Which editors have address this in a more obvious way than me, for example?--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 10:19, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Specifically, Climate Change articles have been put under special measures and the RFC is about the appropriateness of the special measures and whether they should be changed or kept or not. Your various comments about things going on on the CC articles do not refer as far as I can see to the influence of the measures or the measures themselves. They look like comments which could go into an RFC on Climate Change rather than an RFC on Climate Change probation. During the course of the RFC there has been a drift towards general comments but all looking at least at possible interventions. But if you want to leave them thats fine, perhaps others will work out what I missed. --BozMo talk 10:32, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
I think special measures are appropriate, but frankly, I don't think your involvement is. Perhaps my views are better kept on this talk page than in the RFC. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 10:37, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
By all means express your view whereever you like, I certainly do not think the way I dealt with your interventions reflected in any negative way on me. But as I say, actually mentioning the special measures or the probation in your comments on the RFC might improve the appearance of relevance. --BozMo talk 10:42, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
In response to your request, I have added a comment in a way which is more useful. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 10:48, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, thats much clearer to me now anyway --BozMo talk 10:56, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer granted

Redaktor Wikipedia 600px.png

You have been granted the 'reviewer' userright, allowing you to to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. –xenotalk 13:32, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists (television)


What should our policy be on articles that contain lists related to television? You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Stand-alone lists (television). Taric25 (talk) 23:02, 21 June 2010 (UTC) (UTC) (Using {{Please see}})


I haven't seen you in many AfD debates lately. Is there a reason? A lot of unworthy pages are being kept. Abductive (reasoning) 06:25, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I am quite busy with AFD for lists at he moment. Your comments about WT:FICT have not been helpful: they sort of muddy the water, despite the fact the proposed guideline provides a lot of guidance about how to deal with non-notable topics at AFD. Maybe you could revist your comments and support the proposal? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 13:27, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't think anything I do can ever make a difference. Except AfDs. It's very frustrating. Could you opt-in for email? Abductive (reasoning) 09:54, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


You may be interested in Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation#References. Colonel Warden (talk) 05:48, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


I noticed that you participated in a previous RFC at Wikipedia talk:Notability (events). I was wondering if you might share your opinion here: RFC: Should Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts) be merged with Wikipedia:Notability (events) and Wikipedia:Notability (people)? Thanks! Location (talk) 19:10, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Elevation to OR Notice Board

Gavin, based on the tone of your last comment on the History of wolves in Yellowstone allegation of synthesis in the lead issue, it is my view that no further rationale discussion is possible between the two of us. So I have elevated the allegation to Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Is_this_Synthesis_as_alledged.3F so that other editors may assess and advise on the issue.--Mike Cline (talk) 14:22, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Mike, I did not ask you to stick your neck out for the article History of wolves in Yellowstone. Surely you can see the lede is synthesis? Just revert your edits to the article and get the hell out of there before your get yourself into deeper water. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:43, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Gavin, can you briefly describe the synthesis you observe? What conclusions are being reached that can't be found in the sources? Is there a particular claim or specific wording you dislike? Please specify so I can help fix the problem. You've already been asked to do this, so either respond or consider the matter closed. Viriditas (talk) 21:21, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Where would you like me to respond (in detail)? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 21:22, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
The article talk page is preferred. And if you could start a new thread that addresses the problem you see without commenting on or referring to other editors, that would be appreciated. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 21:28, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Very well. I will respond there in detail a little later on today. Make sure you are familiar with the sources before you make any comment, otherwise you might end up with egg on your face. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 21:33, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Gavin, this type of childish commentary is not helpful. If you can improve the article, please do so. If you can't, then stop harping on it. I think everyone agrees that the article can be improved, so it would be helpful for you to collaborate with Mike Cline. Looking at the lead, I think it can be greatly improved, but I don't see you contributing or helping out. Viriditas (talk) 21:40, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Its not childish, in fairness. The leading paragraph is as about as far from the sources it is supposed to be originating from as it could get. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 01:05, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Gavin. Thanks for the apology on the talk page--I think Viriditas' comments are correct, and I have overstepped the mark. My whole hearted apologies to Mike for my outburst. Based on those comments I closed the OR noticeboard discussion as resolved. My neck feels much better. You and I have some fundamental differences re WP:NOR, WP:SYN and a number of other WP policies and guidelines. On the Original Research front, I personally don't think you understand the general consensus on the subject by which WP operates. OR is a strong allegation for any content in WP, thus it needs strong arguments when it is alleged. This is where I think you falter, you are quick to make the OR allegation, but whoefully deficient in making cogent, fact based arguments to support those allegations. Experienced editors, even those with some POV to push, enjoy a good OR discussion. But those discussions must be fact based. As a trained researcher, when I am challenged with OR, I will search for the facts and demand the same of those involved in the discussion. There may be a great many things in WP in which your OR allegations are spot on, but unless you present facts, you will continue to demonstrate a fundamental lack of understanding on what OR is all about.--Mike Cline (talk) 02:01, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

The lead as it was written was comprised of 24-carat original research, and it was about as far removed from being a summary of the sources as Middlesex is distant from Yellowstone: none of the sources cited even remotely supported what was written. You can accuse me of what ever you like, but I presented verbatim quotations, so my facts were spot on. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 02:19, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Original Research of the 1st Order

Unfortunately interactions between Wikipedia editors can sometimes seem impersonal. We don’t often remember that other editors see the world through their eyes, not our own. To that end Gavin, I wanted to share with you what I did this fine Sunday morning. I went fishing, leaving the house early at 4AM. My destination was the Gardner River just inside the northern boundary of Yellowstone National Park. The fishing was good, but the experience was even better. As I have done many times before, I traversed the Gardner Bench—a triangular and xeric landscape bounded on the NW by the Gardner River, the NE by the Yellowstone River and the south by the gentle slopes of Mount Everts.

The confluence of the Gardner and Yellowstone Rivers, from the Bench, Sunday July 11th, 2010

My destination was the south side of confluence of these two rivers, a location etched in the history of Yellowstone, but a place that bears no mark of what occurred there on September 13th, 1869. Three men with nothing more than a few weeks supplies, some pack horses and blankets crossed the confluence and made their way across the Gardner Bench into Rescue Creek. The Cook–Folsom–Peterson Expedition had entered what would become Yellowstone National Park in but a few short years. As they crossed the Gardner River and looked south into Wonderland (a name that would eventually glorify the park in its early years), Cook, Folsom and Peterson were gazing into Terra incognita. As they left the river, if they looked back north they would have seen a skyline dominated by Electric Peak and Sepulcher Mountain, mountains that were unnamed and unexplored as they traversed the Gardner Bench. Mount Everts another unnamed and explored mountain would guide their right flank whilst the Black Canyon the Yellowstone dominated their left. They were unknowingly pathfinders for the more comprehensive Washburn expedition the following year, a group of 18 men who also crossed the Gardner Bench into Wonderland. It was as if Gardners Bench was Alice’s rabbit hole into Wonderland. In 1871, the Hayden expedition chose a better route into the interior of Wonderland and the Gardner Bench became just another landscape. The Army built a small firing range on the bench in the 1890s and while its remnants can be found tucked alongside a small hill the bench is a wild place.

Dawn on the Gardner Bench looking south into Wonderland, July 11, 2010

The Gardner Bench today has not changed much in 140 years. There are only a few games trails that traverse it. There are no signs, no markers, no memorial to the men who traversed it into Wonderland 140 years ago. It is, as the crow flies, but a half mile from the highway that brings millions of people to Yellowstone every year, but very, very few people ever traverse the Gardner Bench. Anglers have trails along the rivers and hikers take the Rescue Creek trail at the base of Mount Everts to walk into remote regions of the park, but there is little need to traverse the Gardner Bench. When I do it, as I did this morning, I do it at dawn. I do it because when I gaze south across the Gardner Bench into Wonderland, I am seeing the same thing Cook, Folsom and Peterson saw 140 years ago. It is not terra incognita today, but at dawn crossing the bench takes me back 140 years.

I thought I'd like to share this with you.--Mike Cline (talk) 20:29, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure what you are getting at. The scene which you describe is most pleasant, as are the pictures, but from what I can deduce from your choice of title for this thread, I am getting the impression that you are annoyed with me. If so, don't beat around the bush, just come out and say it. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 06:04, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Gavin, not at all. Just wanted to share what I did last Sunday. The title was just a bit of a tease, but indeed Cook, Folsom and Peterson were involved in the best kind of Original Research 140 years ago.--Mike Cline (talk) 07:27, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Well just so you know that last Friday I went to the library to have a look at the sources you claimed were related to the lead paragraph of the article History of wolves in Yellowstone, and I was annoyed to find that there was virtually no relationship between it and the sources you cited. It would be better if that article were to be rewritten and renamed, so that it more close reflects the extensive range of published sources that are available on the subject of "Wolves in Yellowstone".
I am not entirely a guilt free person myself when it comes to original research, as one of my first edits when I first joined Wikipedia fell into this trap, as I have acknowledged[3]. Just because I think myself to be familiar with a particular topic, this does not give me the right to feature my own personal views in an article. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 12:24, 17 July 2010 (UTC)


I am going quickly so I am not going to put the page in and waste time. I think there was a near miss, not an edit conflict, and one or other of us have deleted content at the talk page of WP:NOT. Si Trew (talk) 13:54, 20 July 2010 (UTC) Si Trew (talk) 13:54, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Simon. My editing is very clumsy, so applogies for the mishap. I think I have corrected my mistake, so I think we are in the clear. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 13:58, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Descriptive & segmented titles

I don't think that closing the discussion[4] is in any way good ettiquette. Do you wish to discuss this matter over at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:35, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

That would not be a productive venue, this is not a matter of proper etiquette, but rather of proper judgment. If you take issue with my assessment of the debate I would suggest you file a complaint at WP:AN/I. --erachima talk 15:50, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
I think it is, as I don't think you have the unilateral right to halt a discussion, either by collapsing or blanking it. I have opened a thread at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts regrading this matter. Please restore the thread in the meantime so we can resume the discussion. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 16:07, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
And I do not believe you have the right to make a laughingstock of WP:CON via filibuster. I've made an incident report summarizing the matter as neutrally as possible, and you are of course welcome to give your own summary. Cheers! --erachima talk 16:54, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
While the discussion at at Wikipedia talk:Article titles#Descriptive & segmented article titles is very long, I don't think the discussion can be characterised as a filibuster. The discussions include several worked examples, and cover a variety of issues. Given that the purpose stated at the onset of the discussions to move towards a form of agreed wording for the proposal, I think it fair to say that it is my intention to work towards conensus, not to block it. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 10:18, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
  • If you believe you have a new point worth discussing, or that one of your points was genuinely not responded to in those 60 pages of dialog then by all means start a new proposal. However, you should not reopen the archived discussion, because you do not have consensus to do so.
    On the larger matter of your behavior in policy discussions, if you can learn to actually listen to people who don't agree with you, and understand that the purpose of discussions on Wikipedia is to determine the group's tendency, which everyone is then expected to acknowledge and respect, even if they disagree with it, you can start whatever discussions you please wherever you please. --erachima talk 09:46, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
  • ...and the results of the VP thread are quite clear. The discussion should not be reopened. Move on. --erachima talk 19:19, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
I don't think it is that simple, because I don't see there being any alternative, as sourcing is the only way to resolve content disputes between editors with opposing opinions. It seems that segmented titles and the articles they describe are a phenomenon that exist somewhere between content forks and alternative article titles. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 22:18, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
While not brokenhearted over the end of the discussion, your point about there being no "Stalin and the Purges" (like Smuts and the Boer War) was well-taken, I think. It does seem pov. Not sure how to generalize about these though. Student7 (talk) 18:23, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your comment, you helped clarify some points on this issue[5]. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 21:11, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

About your complaint

Hi Gavin. I've removed this because it appears you have misunderstood that you need not be informed about draft RfC/Us. Users are specifically encouraged to construct a draft RfC/U in order to allow the process to run smoothly, and purely because constructing a RfC/U can take a lot of time when two or more users are trying to certify the same dispute. If a draft RfC/U became final, it is listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/UsersList in accordance with the rules, guidelines and traditional procedure, some of which is detailed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct and several other links therein. It is only once that RfC/U becomes final that others can comment, and it is only at that point which you need to be notified so that you can respond. (Additionally, it is only once that RfC/U becomes final that it becomes subject to minimum requirements where it needs to be certified within 48 hours.) If you have any queries, please let me know. Regards, Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:00, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

It sounds rather Kafkaesque, but surely I should have been informed about the existence of User:Masem/draft, if only as a matter of courtesy? Having read the guideline, it does say that "Before asking outside opinion here, it generally helps to simply discuss the matter on the talk page first. Whatever the disagreement, the first step in resolving a dispute is to talk to the other parties involved". It seems to me that in this instance, thedispute is being fabricated first. I disagree with your interpretation: this seems to far from fair play, more like sharp practice to me.--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 16:18, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Not at all. In the first or second link that I gave you, you are only to be notified after it has been listed "in the appropriate Candidate Pages section of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct". There are a number of reasons for this. Sometimes users will remove a lot of the content that they post originally because they feel it is no longer relevant, it is meritless or it is taking up too much space. Certifying parties don't have that luxury once the RfC/U is final because that part is pretty much 'final'; other than striking content, they will need to generally use the talk page to say anything further (though sometimes they may also create another subsection to make a further statement). Obviously with regard to the subject of the RfC/U, responding and re-responding to content that is no longer going to be in a RfC is not a productive use of wiki time. Sometimes certifiers also find that an RfC is not needed at all and then they request the draft be deleted. What matters is what is posted in the final RfC/U because that is when the dispute is being confirmed; the original drafting process is somewhat more private, and they have the right to expect that it will not be interrupted.
Once it is final and publically listed though, that's when others can respond or comment, and that is when notifying you matters so that you or others can make their views known - including if you feel that no prior dispute resolution has occurred or if another editor agrees/disagrees with that view. But remember, the minimum requirements exist to prevent abusing the system and if a final RfC/U has been based on a fabricated dispute, chances are that it will be deleted in line with those requirements. Incidentally, I've been observing how this process works and have been assisting in making it run smoothly for a few years, but if you wish to run with your interpretation based on your experience with the process, then that's up to you. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:38, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
I disagree with this view. It seems to me multiple editors could be working on an RFC while the potential participants would be the last to knowing about it - this sounds like The Trial to me. I will file an official complaint at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment tomorrow. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 21:16, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Re: Everet v. Williams, aka "The Highway Man's case"

Are you interested in writing an article on this topic[6]? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 21:59, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

You got me there: I should have remembered that one since I know I've mentioned it a couple of times here & there on Wikipedia. However, I don't think I have access to the resources needed to write it up. (And LQ doesn't explain what the periodical is -- "Law Quarterly"?) If I ever do find the materials I will eagerly write up the article, or hand them to someone to do so. But if someone does write it up, I'd appreciate a head's-up about it! -- llywrch (talk) 21:32, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
I will take that to be a "no" then. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 22:09, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

More on segmented titles

I noticed your late statement in a currently open arbitration case. I've raised it here and asked that it be discussed, so you might be interested in following that or commenting there. Carcharoth (talk) 05:07, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. I have responded [7] and I hope this helps the case to progress. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 12:49, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Descriptive & segmented article titles

Copied from User talk:Philip Baird Shearer#Descriptive & segmented article titles:

"As a matter of courtesy, I am notifying you that I have revered[8] archiving of the thread at Wikipedia talk:Article titles#Descriptive & segmented article titles.
I think this addtion of the archive template[9] is unnecessary, discourteous and was carried out in underhand manner. Its unnecessary to archive discussion, even if you disagree with some of the points raised in it; there is no point to attack the discussion itself, when it is actually the arguments within it that are objectionable to you. It is discourteous to other editors who may wish to continue the discussion, and runs contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia:Civility. And lastly it was carried out in underhand manner, because you did not sign your name, but "hid" behind that of Erachima.
I think it fair that I can speak my mind to you on this talk page, I would ask you put aside your annoyances, and allow yourself to view things from the other of the argument as well as your own. If you can to that, it is possible to see there are two sides to a dialogue, and "archiving" a discussion is not the way of facilitating constructive dialogue. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 11:13, 30 July 2010 (UTC)"

I am not going to debate it with you. So do not try to discuss it with me. You removed the closure box from the section "Descriptive & segmented article titles" on Wikipedia talk:Article titles. I reinstated it at 04:38, 29 July 2010 with the comment Undid revision 375268006 by Gavin.collins see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive626#Wikipedia talk:Article titles debate closure). This ANI showed a clear consensus for the closure. You reverted my revert, at 10:53, 30 July 2010 Gavin.collins with the comment (Undid revision 376032570 by Philip Baird Shearer (talk) per Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts/archive89#Erachima).

Nuvola apps important.svg My revert was done as an administrators revert based on the ANI, Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts/archive89#Erachima does not trump the ANI. I am going to redo the edit and put back the closing box. If you think I am out of order then do not revert it but take it back to another ANI. If the consensus among other administrators at another ANI is that my edit should be reversed then I will revert it, or not object if another administrator does so. If you revert it, I will take that as disruption of an administrative edit and I will block your account. I will not unblock you account until you agree to leave the section "Descriptive & segmented article titles" alone. -- PBS (talk) 07:20, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

This is an outrage, and is little more than petty edit waring. I have taken the issue to ANI as you suggest[10].--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 07:47, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Category error

Can you give examples of articles where the Category mistake you mention has come up. In particular, cases where the article was deemed notable, and articles where it was eventually deleted because (in part or in full) of the category mistake? aprock (talk) 17:17, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

A good example is Socionomics ("Sociology and Economics). See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Socionomics and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Socionomics (2nd nomination). --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 18:30, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm a bit confused here. That page exists. Oh, hold on. It's Socionomics which was deleted, and Socioeconomics ("Sociology and Economics") which is on wiki. So I guess the question becomes, why was Socionomics deleted, and Socioeconomics not deleted? aprock (talk) 20:50, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Socionomics ("Sociology and Economics) has been deleted. Socioeconomics sounds like "social-economics", but I can't vouch for the notability of that term either. It sounds like a potential deletion candidate to me. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 20:59, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
I notice Category mistake wasn't mentioned (or implied) in the AfD discussion. I guess I'm still just confused. Thanks for the pointer though, it was interesting reading. aprock (talk) 21:37, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
The topic was not notable. The term socionomics was not supported by independent sources. Like Race and intelligence, it lack a source definition from an independent source. Socionomics is an interesting essay title, but it is not an article topic per se. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 23:03, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Again, this isn't making much sense to me. It's not clear that an article needs a source definition from an independent source, nor is it clear to me what does or does not qualify as an independent source here. Likewise, when you phrase it as you have above, it really sounds like you are objecting to the title of the article, and not the content. Or maybe you aren't objecting at all. Again, it's not clear that your comments have much bearing on the article in questions. aprock (talk) 00:02, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
An article with a segmented article title needs a sourced definition to prove its existence, otherwise it is just an essay topic, a neologism, or it has been made up. For instance, Sociology and Economics are both social sciences, so attempts to join them together in some way (Consilience) is in theory a credible undertaking. In practice, there is nothing new under the sun: the social sciences have been split into separate & distinct branches in the 19th century, but hang overs from that period such as Economic sociology did not develop into seperate branches, but were subsumed into economics or sociology. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 07:10, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


Hi, I saw the recent thread you started. Have you thought about creating a subpage discussion in your user space, and inviting users to participate there? Viriditas (talk) 21:55, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

The place to discuss policy is the policy talk page, so that participants don't have to be invited (or uninvited). --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 23:14, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Flexibility in your approach is needed. As you are aware, the policy discussion page in question has exhausted its usefulness. Please don't confuse the map with the territory. It does not matter where the discussion occurs, as long as you are moving towards your goals. In the event you haven't noticed, your inflexible position is moving you in the wrong direction. Please try to see this situation with fresh eyes. Find someone you trust who will give you an honest appraisal and consider their words of wisdom. Don't continue to do the same thing, over and over. Viriditas (talk) 00:33, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Whether a policy discussion has "exhausted its usefulness" is a matter of opinion, not fact. In my view, all policy discussions are useful, particularly if they conducted in a constructive & civil manner. Continuing with the "same thing" is what a focused discussion is all about. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:26, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Continuing with the same thing while expecting different results, is a popular definition of insanity. Viriditas (talk) 08:33, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't think mental capacity is relevant to policy dicussions. I am sure there are editors (and admins) with mental handicap who contribute in an effective and constructive to such discussions, and should not be derided or treated any differently from so called "normal" editors.
My experience suggests that if you want to effect policy change, you have to be prepared stick your neck out with a clear proposal, state your case in detail and to be persistant and accept and respond to criticism, particularly of the constructive variety. I think those are virtues, not vices. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:57, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Can you give me a status report? Where are you now, in relation to where you were when you started? Viriditas (talk) 10:00, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Which matter are you refering to? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 10:14, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Surely, there is only one: Wikipedia talk:Article titles#Descriptive & segmented article titles. Viriditas (talk) 10:15, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
The status is that the proposal has been tabled, several detailed article examples have discussed, some specific objections have been raised, but the discussion has now been cut short without any lessons having been learnt. In my mind, some form of summary of the discussions should be made, and conclusions reached, but there appears to be very entrenched opposition to continuing the discussion at all.
At the end of the day, I can't stop editors and admins from collapsing or achiving the discussions, regardless of how extreme such actions may appear to me, given the efforts I have made to keep the discussions open, structured and on topic. I can only rely on their goodwill, courtesy and willingness of other editors and admins to allow discussions to take place, even if they might disagree with principles espoused in the proposal, or object to my participation in them. But if that good will is not there, then the opportunity to get some benefit from the what has been learned is no longer available, to me at least. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 10:31, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Gavin, the proposal was rejected. I recommend taking a break from this line of reasoning for a day or more, and then coming back to it fresh. Then, try creating a subpage in your user space where you can gather your thoughts. From there, try writing an essay or even a proposed guideline or policy, and using your user space, invite editors to visit and make comments, and work with them to reach your goal. This time, make an attempt to understand your opposition, and acknowledge their objections instead of making accusations about their motives. Viriditas (talk) 10:47, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Whether the proposal was rejected is a matter of opinion, not fact, and the use of contentious labels to describe a debate that was still in full swing is not a justification for collapsing or archving the discussion. Better to characterise the debate as having "got under the skin" of certain editors and admins is closer to the mark.
If there had been a motion to end the discussion and reject the proposal, it would be both normal and natural for it to have taken place within the context of the debate itself, not at WP:ANI which is not a moot court for closing policy talk threads. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 11:03, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Gavin, the fact that the proposal was rejected multiple times is not subject to debate. Consensus for the close was noted on ANI Archive 626 at 21 July. You began forum shopping and reopened the debate over at VPP, where it was soundly rejected again, by 26 July. Consensus was also soundly against you in several other forums, including Wikiquette alerts. It's best for everyone if you stop hitting your head against the wall, and change your strategy. Also, stop questioning the motives of other editors and begin to focus solely on the flaws in your rejected proposal. Viriditas (talk) 11:21, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Your description of events is does fairly not represent what has occured. If you follow the sequence of events you will see that
  1. it was Eerachima who made a personal attack on me[11] as an excuse to abruptly halt an open RFC that was still in progress[12], and subsequently collapsed the discussion without any warning.
  2. Rather than enter into an edit war with him, I informed him that this was a breach of editorial ettiquette and asked him if he wished to discuss the matter at Wikiquette alerts[13], which I think is an entirely reasonable and appropriate given that this his action represented an improper use of the Navbox template.
  3. He did not formally decline my offer, but instead opened a thread at WP:ANI. If you ask me, Erachima actions are a good example of forum shopping, but I think to accuse me of forum shopping is unfair; I was simply going through the correct channel, namely Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts/archive89#Erachima.
Whether Erachima's personal attack on me has any merit is a matter of opinion, but I think you must concede that it should not have been used a justification for halting, impeding or generally inhibiting a policy discussion that was the subject of an open RFC. If any editor or admin believes that the discussion had been rejected, then they should have said why or made a counter proposal, and allow other editors to respond, so that the participants can reach a shared understanding of the issues. There must 50 ways to end a policy discussion, but doing so in contravention of WP:CIVIL should not be one of them. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 12:11, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Earlier in this thread, you said you would like to see a summary of the discussion and objections. That's what I've been asking to see as well. Could you create it in your user space and then advertise the link and request input from interested parties? Viriditas (talk) 17:48, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
You are repeating yourself. I have already answered this question: The place to discuss policy is the policy talk page, so that participants don't have to be invited (or uninvited). --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 19:11, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Can you explain what that entails? Does that mean you'll be rebooting your proposal soon? Lots of editors discuss policy and summarize policy discussions in their user space. Viriditas (talk) 21:23, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
I have already undertaken not restart the discussion once at Wikiquette alerts in an attempt to appease editors such as Erachima by trying to meet them half-way. I have really bent over backwards over this issue, gone through channels, kept everyone notified and attempted to show goodwill. But the collapsing of the discussion and the bullying this represents has just gone to far, which is why I started the thread at WP:ANI[[14]. I have travelled the distance in attempt to close this issue to everyone's satisfaction, now it is down to others to follow suit and do the right thing. The archive template should be removed, as it sets a bad precedent, as it was never intended to be used in this way, this at least you must concede. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 22:15, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Has it occurred to you that there is more than one way to reach your goal? You appear to be wearing out the same dirt path through the forest, while ignoring the trail on the forest ridge overlooking the trees. I will say for the last time, I would like to review a summary of the discussion in your user space. If you could create that page, that would help myself and others understand your proposal. Viriditas (talk) 00:07, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
To use you analogy, I can't follow the trail on the ridge overlooking the trees if I am not in the forest (i.e. the policy talk page) in the first place. The place to discuss policy is the policy talk page; my personal user page is not the right venue. If you want to see a summary of discussion, open a thread at WT:Article titles, where myself and other editors will do this collaboratively, as is the fashion and custom in Wikipedia. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 05:58, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
You misunderstand both the analogy and the meaning. It is never used to describe a literal physical location, but rather a type of thought process, one that is narrow and unable to see the big picture. And, a user subpage does not mean a talk page. There is apparently a serious inability to communicate here, so I will no longer continue this discussion. Viriditas (talk) 07:20, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
I understand your analogy perfectly, but we will have to agree to disagree. I think your accusation that I can't see the "big picture" is not appropriate: the proposal that addresses descriptive and segmented article titles does look at the wider issue of inappropritate article titles, hence the the length and complexity of the disucsussions. This is precisely why such "big picture" issues should be discussed on a policy tak page, rather than some remote backwater such as a user subpage - that would be a good example of a Information silo. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:13, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Gavin, I will second Virditas’ suggestion here. An essay encapsulating your ideas about titles would go along way toward helping you and us (the WP community) understand exactly what the objectives are. In a post above you stated: The place to discuss policy is the policy talk page; my personal user page is not the right venue. You are absolutely correct. However, that said, when one’s ideas are at the edges with lots of opposition, like yours, a policy talk page discussion isn’t the best venue to help others understand what your position is. When the position is unclear, it is far too easy to challenge and discount fragments of the position and divert the discussion down useless rat holes. Since talk page discussions are typically sound bites, often ill-conceived and designed only to counter a previous statement, real understanding of a complex position become difficult. On the other hand, an essay in your user space is your opportunity to lay out your position—what changes should be made, the rationale, the pro and cons. Much like a legal brief, you control the tone, message and facts. In one place, your ideas become clear and from your point of view, defendable. Then and only then in the appropriate policy discussions can you refer editors to the essay and your complete position. You have a complex and controversial position to sell, if you can’t make a complete, solid case in a user essay, then it is unlikely you’ll make your case in fragmented policy discussions. FYI, am off with a friend this morning into the Black Canyon of the Yellowstone for some backcountry fishing. I'll send along a few pics when I return. Regards.--Mike Cline (talk) 09:58, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I think you have forgotten that the discussion contained a clear and specific proposal to change policy that encapsulated principles taken from existing policy. An essay is therefore unnecessary; there is no need to "gild the lilly" in this instance. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 11:02, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Sorry you don't think the essay is a good idea. I was looking forward to it. Here's where I spent my day away from WP.
Yellowstone River near Rescue Creek Trail
Nothing fancy but caught dozens of these all day

--Mike Cline (talk) 01:46, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I did not think the essay idea was any good, nor was it a suggestion made in good faith. The objective of the proposal was change policy, not to talk about it. I should be able to discuss article titles without fear of censorship....from any quarter. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 06:53, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Descriptive titles, segmented titles

Please keep me informed of developments in any ongoing discussions under the general topic area of descriptive titles and segmented article titles. I would like to participate where I can. I appreciate your efforts in this. Thanks. Bus stop (talk) 10:38, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Apologies, but I was not sure you would be interested in what is being labeled as being an issue relating to my editorial behaviour, but for your information there is a discussion about the collapsing and archiving of policy talk page discussions at WP:ANI relating to this issue (links shown above).--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 10:45, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
In my opinion your editorial behavior is exemplary. Bus stop (talk) 12:41, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

No one is ever uninvited to a project space discussion

Gavin – Yesterday you made a comment on the Article Titles talk page that got me very angry. I am normally a very calm and collected type who rarely gets angry at anyone. I purposely have delayed my response to cool my emotions on this one. The comment: they have been the uninvited guest to these discussions until now displays an arrogance and condescension on your part that tells me you just don’t understand how WP works, despite your years of experience. No editor, no matter what level of experience, needs to be invited to participate in project space discussions. Anyone is free to contribute to any discussion on policy, guidelines, as they see fit anytime they see fit. Those discussions are not owned by anyone and within the context of our discussion norms, no editor should ever be considered an uninvited participant. It is irrelevant as to what point you were trying to make or even if you didn’t really mean what you said. You said it and one must assume you were implying that you owned the discussion and had the right to control who participated.

There are many of us who spend a lot of our personal time contributing to WP. We are all volunteers. We chose where, when and how to contribute because WP allows us to do so. Despite your very poor record of content contributions which impacts your credibility on many fronts, your inputs into policy and other project space discussions are just as welcome as any other editor. Your positions are tedious and intractable, but that does not mean you should be or will be uninvited to any discussion. That sentiment applies to any and all editors.

Your comment is not a civility issue, nor does it require an apology on your part. But it was ill-reasoned and demonstrated a sincere lack of perspective on your part about how we all work together to improve this encyclopedia. I do not desire a response, nor do I intend to discuss this any further.--Mike Cline (talk) 14:52, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Lets be clear, Mike. The uninvited guest I was refering to these discussions until now is the problematic choice of title employed in the article History of Wolves in Yellowstone, a choice that I believe to have been yours, and a choice I disagee with. The discussions at WT:AT are not owned by any editor, but if you have a particular interest in this article, and it that its problematic title is the reason for your bitter resistence to my proposal, then you need to make it explicit to all the other editors, as it is clearly a bone of contention between us, even if you do not want to acknowledge this openly.
I am attempting to put a clear and reasonable proposal forward for discussion, but the number and frequency of bitter personal attacks you have directed against me[15][16] gives me reason to believe that there is more at stake than just the outcome of our disucssion WT:AT. If you want to clear the air about this issue, do it now and lets be done with it.
The reason I ask, and it should already be clear to you, is that we are not reaching a shared understanding of how sources influence article titles. It seems to me that I am making all the running in the discussion, and whilst I may be entirely wrong, or my proposal may be entirely useless as you suggest, I expect you to meet me some of the way by putting forward a counter proposal or a compromise postition that we can both agree on. So far all I see is a stuburn refusal to even consider my proposals.
I suggest we get the issue of the article History of Wolves in Yellowstone out of the way now, because its title is acting like a poison in the discussions between us, and is prevent us from reaching a shared understanding of how sourcing influences article titles (if it influences them at all).--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:25, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Ellen Hambro

I agree with you that the discussion over Ellen Hambro is unrelated to the discussion on the lists RFC, but I still think that it is a matter which needs to be cleared up.

To be blunt: In my view, I find that many of your views on deletion policy are outright unreasonable, and your "delete" vote on that AFD is the single clearest example that. This is not simply matter of me disagreeing with your position on notability, I find that the position you took on that AFD demonstrates a complete disregard for Wikipedia's purpose: namely to be the best and most comprehensive encyclopedia in the World. If that purpose is to be achieved, we should at least cover the material which other encyclopedias do. There is in fact a project to help us reach that goal.

Our policies and guidelines related to inclusion and deletion help us determine whether or not a particular topic is suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia, but they do not order us to substitute them for good judgement. In the case of Ellen Hambro, the editors of a general purpose paper encyclopedia, which unlike Wikipedia is restricted by space constraints, decided that Hambro was significant enough and that space should be set aside for her. At that point, one shouldn't need acronyms like WP:N, and WP:NOT to help us determine whether Hambro is suitable for an encyclopedia, we know the answer since she is already covered in an encyclopedia. (I believe that you are misreading WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTNEWS when you claim that Hambro fails these criteria, but that is a different matter.) Claiming that a team of professional encyclopedia writers don't know what they are doing and letting crap slip into their encyclopedia seems very odd. At the end, Hambro's notability was accepted everyone except you and a couple of single-purpose accounts, and the article was duly kept.

The reason I am bothered by your position on Hambro's article is that I am questioning whether it is worth trying make compromises with someone who holds the views you hold here. Good compromises can be reached between people who initially disagree, but hold reasonable views in advance, views compatible with Wikipedia's goals and purpose. However, per Overton window theory, I cannot see why anyone would make concessions to reach a compromise with someone who believes that material covered in encyclopedias doesn't belong in an encyclopedia.

Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:41, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I certainly recognise most of your views to be my own about policies and guidelines, but the content of the article is problematic, at least in my view. My scandanavian language skills are non-existent, so I may have misread the sources, but I did not perceive Ellen to have been the subject of any significant coverage.
I am not sure which source you are refering to as being the encyclopedia, but my review of the sources suggests that most of the article's content comes from tertiary sources that don't provide any attribution or from press releases. There is one news article, but the coverage of Ellen is distincly thin.
Perhaps if we go through the sources together on the talk page, that might be a useful way to address the concerns I raised in the AFD. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 14:44, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
The source in question in Store norske leksikon. It has since moved online, but at the time of the AFD, this was the Norwegian encyclopedia. It is a multiple-volume traditional encyclopedia, pretty much like Brittanica but a bit smaller. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:16, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Also, if you want to initiate discussion of the sources on the talkpage, that is up to you. But I see no reason why I should raise concerns about an article which I think is perfectly OK. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:19, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Its up to you. I can't see the source of her entry on Store norske leksikon, but unlike Wikipedia, there are no citations. My suspicion is that this entry is little more than a regurgition of civil service press release, so it is not evidence of notability. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 16:18, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

list side discussion

Just out of curiosity... you seem to be of the mind that a lot of problems with list articles can be solved by applying the general notability guideline. I think that works in a lot of cases. But what do you make of the community practice of list-ifying non-notable content? I ask because I'm not crazy about it but I acknowledge that it happens and that it's a fair compromise. I also recognize that guidelines have to follow community best practices rather than trying to dictate. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:54, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Dumping non-notable articles into list makes no sense, as it contravenes WP:NOT#DIR and WP:NOT#OR. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:45, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

List of Masonic buildings

At the RfC on lists, you made the following comment:

  • "I think the truth is no contributor to the List of Masonic buildings is willing to admit that it fails WP:NOT#DIR, even though there is no evidence of notability. Likewise, none of the contributors would want to admit that the topic was was made up one day, and that if fails WP:NOT#DIR, even though its subject matter has never been the subject of published research in the real world. "

Would you please make this point at the article's talk page? Blueboar (talk) 23:41, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I would like to help you, Blueboar, as I think you have bravely stuck your neck out over the issue of list notability, and you deserve a response from me. However, we are still holding conflicting positions on this issue. The idea that "notability established at the parent article may sometimes carry over to the spun-out" is a bone of contention, and if I were to join in the discussion at Talk:List of Masonic buildings, there is a risk that this difference of opinion could be used to discredit my arguments. If you could consider changing your views on this issue, this would not only speed up the RFC, but it would also add weight to the above arguments. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 07:09, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Articles to be deleted

You took part on this Article for deletion discussion, but you failed on these ones:

Why? Partly it makes your result of your deletion article invalid. That's why i propsed all these articles for deletion for the same reason as your previous discussion about the List_of_XMPP_client_software today, but User:SarekOfVulcan reverted all deletion proposals. This should you know. -- (talk) 16:10, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

He is technically correct: you can nominate an article or list for deletion using the argument WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, as each nomination has to be considered on its own merit. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 16:48, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Judaism and violence

I was just wondering if you have an opinion on this. In my opinion it is another instance in which sources don't support the scope of the article. Bus stop (talk) 04:12, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I have responded[17] as clearly this essay topic runs contrary to the spirit and the letter of Wikipedia's content policies. Let me know if this article is nominated for deletion. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:52, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Some credit...


While I have been highly critical of some of your activities on Wikipedia, I think it's proper to give you credit where credit is due. I think it is wonderful to see you working on improving articles again, with a focus on locating reliable sources for them. Astronomy is an area I'm interested in, but not so very knowledgeable in.

Best wishes, Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:27, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I am not knowledgeble in either, but luckily reliable sources are, and I am thankful to be guided by them. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:02, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

RFC/USER discussion concerning you (Gavin.collins)

Hello, Gavin.collins. Please be aware that a request for comments has been filed concerning your conduct on Wikipedia. The RFC entry can be found by your name in this list, and the actual discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Gavin.collins3, where you may want to participate. MASEM (t) 16:49, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I am aware you have stated you believe this is an ad hominium attack against you and that you likely will not participate; that is your choice. However, past advise has suggested that if this fails to correct the problems, an ArbCom case will be necessary, using the results (or lack thereof) of this RFC as evidence. --MASEM (t) 16:49, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I won't be responding. The lack of courtesy has been discussed elsewhere. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 18:56, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Could you please reconsider commenting on the RFC? I think you make a valid point about draft notification, but this is something we can handle in other ways and doesn't have much to do with this RFC. Viriditas (talk) 22:04, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
I have already responded to Masem on this issue before the RFC was filed [18][19]. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 06:52, 16 September 2010 (UTC)