User talk:Tazerdadog

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



Van Day Truex[edit]

I am a cousin of Van Day Truex, knew him personally, and was one of the informants for the biography by Adam Lewis. My submitted article of 30 March 2014 was overridden by a much shorter article now in Wikipedia. That article has a few errors, including place of birth, but does add some points about his career. I wish to reinstate my original submission with perhaps minor additions. I have studied Wikipedia's info. on editing but haven't figured out how to make such a thorough reinstatement. William J. Pease (talk) 17:59, 27 June 2016 (UTC)William J. PeaseWilliam J. Pease (talk) 17:59, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi there! It looks like you might have a conflict of interest, because you are editing about your family. I have no experience with Van Day Truex, and am a mechanical engineer by profession, which is about as far away from fashion designer as is possible. If you would like to get the material added (and from what I've seen, a good chunk of it is usable), simply go to the talk page and add in the following template:
 
==Requested Changes==

{{Request edit|R}}

(Your request - this can be as simple as copy-pasting the thing you posted on my talk page)

~~~~

 

The requested changes will show up as a new heading for discussion on the talk page, if you want a different title, change what is between the equals signs The requested edit between the curly braces is a template that will alert wikipedia editors more familiar with the subject than I am to help you. The R just means that you are requesting a substantial edit. The four tildes sign and date your post.

I hope this helps!

Tazerdadog (talk) 20:59, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

ANI closure[edit]

I think this is what you were missing. No comment on the actual closure/result. --kelapstick(bainuu) 03:52, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the fix! And I welcome comments on the closure/result here or at ANI. I did have to go a bit outside of my comfort zone, but that needed to be closed.Tazerdadog (talk) 03:55, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Tazerdadog. I do have some concerns about your closure. I and several other users asked for a specific list of pages, which Rob gave. Therefore, I'm surprised that your closure doesn't make any mention of specific pages, and I don't feel that you addressed the concerns that the protection would be "overly broad." There's no requirement in your closure that an SPI confirm that the users vandalizing a specific page are Nikita socks. Theoretically, any admin could examine a page, conclude that the vandal was a Nikita sock without so much as asking for a second opinion, which is the benefit that SPI provides, and protect the page. Some admins hear ducks quacking much more readily than other admins. On the surface, your closure seems perfectly reasonable, but the more I reason through the possible scenarios that will result from your close, the more it feels like carte blanche.

I also have some more general concerns about extended confirm protection. I joined Wikipedia back in 2006. Those were the golden days when articles expanded quickly and I half-expected to get into an edit conflict on any article covering a subject known to the general public, all because so many users were trying to edit at the same time. Since then, I patrol recent changes besides expanding articles that interest me. One thing that has stayed consistent since 2006 is that vandalism still gets reverted very quickly. A lot of vandal patrollers that I know have gone inactive, but a lot of new vandal patrollers have joined in the meanwhile. But when I slow down and look at the articles I'm reverting vandalism to, an alarming portion of them are extremely outdated. They have updates up until 2009 or 2010 and the record thins out from there because that's when Wikipedia lost a great portion of users. Then I put myself in the shoes of a newcomer in 2016. I come across a page that is semi-protected. 10 edits, 4 days still seems doable. I come across a page that is extended confirm protected. 500 edits, 30 days—that seems like nothing to seasoned editors like us, but keep in mind that this newcomer is unsure about how to edit and may have received a litany of templated warnings on their talk page. If they become interested in reverting vandalism or fixing typos, they soon find this threshold is easily overcome, but if they only want to write new content, 500 edits seems like an insurmountable barrier. The more pages this newcomer encounters that are extended confirm protected, the more they will conclude that Wikipedia does not want them. My point is that in 2016, Wikipedia has an easier time attracting "maintenance-oriented" editors than potential new content contributors, so it is critical not to drive the latter group away, not to undermine our ethos as an encyclopedia that "anybody" can edit.

Those are my thoughts; if you read through them, thanks for bearing with me. I'm not asking that your closure be reverted. At this point, it would be more productive for me to drop the stick and move on the RfC Krakatoa Katie is starting. It really is very kind and honorable of you to invite feedback on your closure. Had it not been for that request, I probably would have felt out of my comfort zone voicing my concerns. Thanks, Altamel (talk) 04:49, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello Altamel, and thank you for voicing your concerns. I definitely owe you a detailed explanation on why I closed the discussion the way I did.
A specific list of pages was given by @BU Rob13:. My understanding was that this list was intended to exemplify the types of articles that protection was requested for, rather than be an exhaustive list. Pinging Rob to confirm this is the case. Rob also mentioned here having to watchlist 100+ pages in order to combat the vandalism, and it seemed clear from context that the request was intended to cover all of them, so simply listing the four examples given as the only cases would have been a misreading of the scope of the discussion. Another factor that I was attempting to do throughout my close was to give protecting administrators enough flexibility to address the concerns without hamstringing them.
Regarding the overly broad concerns, I was trying for the most narrow application of the protection that would be effective. Fortunately, the close only has to be in effect for ~40 days while the RFC is set up, run, and closed. If you can find a way to narrow the closure without hampering the protecting admin's ability to prevent the vandalism, I'd love to hear it. The way I am currently contemplating is requiring each instance of 30/500 protection to be posted on a noticeboard for community review. I don't want to red tape the admins, which is why I haven't included that in the close, but it's a thought.
I intentionally did not require a SPI confirmation for two reasons. First, I wanted to reduce the red tape on the administrators. Secondly, this vandal appears to have a very established and distinctive MO. THis suggests that involving a checkuser just to stop simple vandalism is excessive process, and DUCK is sufficient. Other admins will hear quacks at different volume levels, but in general they are reasonable people.
Regarding the concerns in your second paragraph, I sympathize, but most of them will be hashed out at the impending RFC. However, I think it is important to consider the alternatives to the solution the community ultimately decided upon - semiprotect the article and accept that many of our increasingly limited volunteer hours go towards reverting the vandalism that semiprotection is insufficient for, or full protect the article, and exascerbate all of the (very real) problems you've mentioned. Thinking of 30/500 protection as an alternative to full protection may make it seem more palatable.
Finally, I want to mention that I set up my close very deliberately to simply add 30/500 as a tool which can be used when it is appropriate within the scope of the discussion. I was very careful not to mandate that it should be used as the primary or only line of defense within these articles.
Let me know if you have additional concerns, or if I haven't addressed any of your concerns to your satisfaction. I recognize that we are unlikely to agree fully here, but I hope my explanation makes the close more palatable. I look forward to seeing you in Krakatoa Katie's RFC on July 4. Cheers, Tazerdadog (talk) 07:19, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi Tazerdadog, and thanks for your explanation. I think I better understand how you did try to balance both sides of the debate, and your justification for the close was quite reasonable. Regarding SPI confirmation, I should have been more clear on that point. I did not mean I wished for a CU to confirm every sock, as that would take too much time. As is normally the case, sometimes other admins or users will weigh in during an SPI and give their opinions, especially if CU is not requested. Your proposal that each instance of 30/500 protection be brought before the community for review is excellent. I think it will help discourage the excessive use of this protection level. My issue with the 30/500 as an alternative to full protection rationale is that it many cases, it is a logical fallacy. Admins are extremely reluctant to full protect pages (as was the case with the pages Nikita vandalized), so rarely will there be cases where 30/500 protection would have actually relieved an article from being full protected. For the most part, you have addressed my concerns—thanks for your patience. I look forward to seeing you in the RfC as well. Altamel (talk) 15:53, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Yay Tazerdadog![edit]

Hi, Tazerdadog. Thank you for participating in my nomination for adminship. I really appreciate that you asked me a question. It means a lot to me and I am truly grateful for your question, your comments, and for your !vote. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 07:28, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of James E. Wolfe for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article James E. Wolfe is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James E. Wolfe until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines. Toddst1 (talk) 17:36, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion???[edit]

I'm trying to wrap my head around this one. Katarina Zavatska became one of the top 15 junior tennis players in the world this year and has now turned pro. She played an impressive Wimbledon match against the No. 1 junior player in the world in Anastasia Potapova (who has a Wikipedia page). Rebeka Masarova and Mira Antonitsch are ranked much lower than Zavatska, 130 and 314 positions lower respectively, and yet both have their own Wikipedia page. And your reason for deletion is that Katarina Zavatska is not sufficiently noteworthy?

Zavatska completed a rare golden set as listed in that particular Wikipedia article, her stock is quickly rising in the world of tennis, and I sought out every link related to her career that I could find. I thought it was an appropriately-composed article about an important tennis player. Maybe you should propose deletions of Mira Antonitsch first, then Rebeka Masarova, and gradually work your way up to Zavatska. Heck, with patience and focus you could eventually work your way up to the proposed deletion of Serena Williams' article. She's a tennis player by the way.

--Superdupereditor (talk) 02:23, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi there. The standard for inclusion of tennis players is at WP:NTENNIS. I am gong to reproduce the guideline below so that we don't have to keep flipping back and forth:
Tennis figures are presumed to be notable if they
  1. Are a member of the International Tennis Hall of Fame, either in the contributor or player category
  2. Have competed in one of the international team competitions: Fed Cup, Davis Cup, Hopman Cup or World Team Cup
  3. Have competed in the main draw in one of the highest level professional tournaments:
  4. Have won at least one title in any of the ATP Challenger tournaments
  5. Have won at least one title in any of the ITF Women's $50,000–$100,000+ tournaments. Until 2007, the notability threshold shall be winning a $25,000 tournament based on the lowest payout for a men's challenger tournament in the same year.
  6. Hold a tennis record recognized by the International Tennis Federation, ATP or WTA
This guideline applies equally to singles and doubles players. Junior players are presumed to be notable if they have won at least a junior Grand Slam title, have been in the top 3 of the junior ITF world rankings or can be shown to meet the wider requirements of WP:GNG.
Rebeka Masarova is the reigning women's junior french open champion, satisfying the last sentence of the guideline.
Mira Antonitsch does not appear to satisfy the guideline. I'm about to PROD it. She is notable because she played in the main draw of a WTA Tour tournament
Either way, the relevant guideline is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.
Addressing Zavatska: top 15 is not top 3 junior, which is the line. Simply being a pro tennis player is not enough to satisfy the guideline. If the golden set attracted enough media attention, then you could try to claim she meets the general notability guideline. If the wimbledon match was in the main draw, rather than in the juniors tournament, that would make her notabble. From context, this doesn't seem to be the case, but I could be wrong. The article was well-composed, the only problem that it had was notability.
You are of course free to remove the proposed deletion tag if you think I missed something. Either way, let me know.
Cheers, Tazerdadog (talk) 03:37, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Your explanation makes sense, but it's a pretty nitpicky way to disqualify Zavatska and keep Antonitsch. I firmly believe Zavatska is more notable and will become even more noteworthy over the next year.
Zavatska played in the main draw of the $25,000 Beinasco tournament in February of 2016 at the professional level [[1]] which is a WTA tournament [[2]], and that seems to be sufficient in my opinion.
--Superdupereditor (talk) 13:14, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
She well may become notable within a year or two, that would not surprise me. However, she is not notable now according to the accepted standard on Wikipedia. I'd direct further energies on this to the AFD in progress. Tazerdadog (talk) 13:41, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Proposed Speedily Deletion for Dennis Schwab[edit]

Hi Tazerdadog,

It's Oldmanreid. You proposed a speedily deletion for my page on Dennis Schwab. I put on the talk a couple of reasons why I do not believe the page should be deleted.

I will reiterate that I am new to wikipedia. This is the first webpage that I am creating, or even editing. So, I have almost no experience. Second, I have only been working on this for about an hour, maybe less. So, it is not really detailed and not exactly knowing what I am doing with all of the controls did not make this easier. Third, Dennis Schwab did have a big impact on real estate in Oshkosh. He worked for 50 years in Real Estate and worked well into his battle with ALS. I have talked to people in the Oshkosh community at his funeral, and by the way they talked about him, he had a huge impact on Oshkosh. So, please do not speedily delete the webpage. With time, it will be a better webpage.

Old Man Reid — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldmanreid (talkcontribs) 04:43, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello Oldmanreid,
Unfortunately, It looks like Dennis Schwab does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion (see here). The basic criteria are that subject must have "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." I sympathize that you are new to this process, and if I can help you out in any way, let me know. Unfortunately, I have to stand by my deletion nomination as appropriate in this case. Tazerdadog (talk) 05:00, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of the Article on R.C. Natarajan[edit]

Hi there! I have left messages for you on this article's entry on the 'Articles for Deletion' page. Please help by reverting at the earliest. Amazingandlively (talk) 14:12, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

I see them, but I'm going to let the deletion discussion run for now. Notability is not a concern that can be edited away -a subject is notable, or they are not.Tazerdadog (talk) 14:14, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Neelix redirects[edit]

I think you're being a bit "tight" in deciding which ones should be trashed, i.e. I declined several of the speedy deletion requests that you made, but I also deleted a good number of them. Beyond that, I really have no comments on your editing. Having gone through a bunch of these previously, I can tell you that it's easier for you if you just do a lot of links consecutively: just open each link, tag it for speedy or don't tag it, and then remove the whole batch from the list, rather than leaving the links to the redirects that you tagged. You don't have to, of course; I just found it more convenient for myself when doing the frogs five months ago. Nyttend (talk) 22:28, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

It's a matter of judgement, fundamentally, and your opinion of what's appropriate is just as valid as mine. Two of the ones I just declined have been taken to RFD by DGG, who has at least as much wikiexperience as I do. Nyttend (talk) 22:33, 17 July 2016 (UTC)