User talk:WilyD

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Plato and Aristotle discussing something. Unexplained:Plato's laptop.

Your RFD !votes[edit]

I want to preface this by saying that sometimes I think that foreign language redirects should be kept. I !voted to keep , for example (Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2015_June_8#.E6.84.9B). I also don't have a problem with you !voting to keep foreign-language redirects, in general. I understand the argument and respect it. That being said, it isn't a good idea to say that "there isn't a reason given for deletion." By saying that, it is a personal attack against the nominator and a very weak argument that doesn't hold much merit. In fact, it is an argument for deletion and one that has been upheld on several occasions. Instead, you should be explaining why you think foreign-language redirects should be kept because is a much stronger argument and one that actually has some truth to it. Remember that these discussions are not a vote. I respect you and I apologize if I have been too strong with my previous replies to you. But please have some respect back though and show that you are participating in the discussion instead of dropping off copy-and-pasted nonsense every time someone nominates a redirect that you think should be kept. As an example, my keep rationale got Ivanvector to change his opinion on the subject. Tavix | Talk  15:16, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

By the way, I am watching this page and would like a response here. Tavix | Talk  15:17, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
I see what you're getting at, but I don't agree with some of the reasoning. It's not a personal attack to note that no rationale for deletion has been given - it might reflect badly on someone that they're nominated a redirect for deletion without providing a reason, but that's an inference that people reading the discussion draw, not anything I'm saying (and it's not an evaluation of any particular editor(s), but of the discussion). The same problem applies to the rest of what you're suggesting - when someone doesn't provide a reason a redirect should be deleted, I can't engage in a discussion, nothing has been provided to discuss. So, it's not really an "argument" - and I don't think I've ever argued keep based on that, but always on some rationale related to usefulness and such, but it's a note as to why it's impossible to weigh the merits of the deletion argument. It's a tough situation, and yes, I get left kind of talking to myself, but when nobody's discussing the merits of the redirect, I'm the only person I can find to talk to, as it were. WilyD 15:38, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
When you say that "nothing has been provided to discuss"—it's simply not true. These rationales hinge on WP:RFOREIGN, which is an essay that expands and supplements WP:RFD#D8: "if the redirect is a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name, it is unlikely to be useful." Someone who nominates redirects of these type don't think they are useful because they are novel or very obscure synomyms. I don't see how you think that there is nothing provided to discuss from that. There is a lot you could do with that to demonstrate that they are not obscure and/or are useful. For example, you could provide examples of its use. If you do that, it goes a long way to invalidate that rationale and the redirect will be much more likely to be kept. (btw: in this context, I used argue in its original sense: "to declare, show, prove, make clear") Tavix | Talk  16:00, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm also confused by "I get left kind of talking to myself." In Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2015_June_3#Harijs_Poters, it doesn't look like you're talking to yourself. Three other people replied to your rationale and you haven't provided any responses. Tavix | Talk  16:15, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
I would suggest that's factually wrong - people might quote RFOREIGN (or whatever), but there's no reason there. If I suggest "I can't respond to RFOREIGN because walking is a kind of cheese" you can't actually engage that - sure the grammar is correct, but there's no idea behind it that can be engaged - I mean, it's sort of technically true that one could have a Monty Python-esque "yes it is - no it isn't - yes it is" kind of argument, but you can't have a discussion who !vote delete per WP:WIKIGNOME or whatever - if there's no reasoning in it, you can't say anything. If no one else is willing to think about what they're writing, I can only engage myself. Sure, people write words in response, but I can't engage words, only ideas, in which there are none. WilyD 19:26, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
To address: "there's no reason there" in RFOREIGN... Yes there is. It's not "nonsense" like you suggest. It expands upon WP:RFD#D8 which states "if the redirect is a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name, it is unlikely to be useful." Does that make sense to you? Tavix| Talk  20:24, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
If it were true, it might make sense, but since it's not true, it doesn't make sense. Novel or very obscure search terms aren't likely to be used, so they're useless (almost tautologically) - common and/or proper terms are likely to be used, so they're useful. "Many people like the taste of the Moon, while many do not" is just nonsense, not an expansion of "Many people like the taste of blue cheese, while many do not". It would be a reasonable expansion if the Moon were made of blue cheese, but since it's unambiguously not, it just ends up being a bunch of gibberish. WilyD 09:24, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
You don't have to agree with something to understand it. I understand a lot of viewpoints that are not my own. Tavix| Talk  14:47, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Resonance Kota[edit]

You are right, I didn't go far enough back in the history. The version I deleted was riddled with spam and possible copyright violation. I've now restored to the version of 1 March 2015, which looks fairly clean. I've also watchlisted this, and I may semi if spamming from ISPs continues, thanks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:44, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I've indeffed User:ResonanceEdu as a spamuser name making highly promotional edits. I suspect that this is probably at least one of the spamming ISPs, but let's see Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:49, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Your misplaced accusations[edit]

[1] Do you even read what I'm saying? If you'd do that, you'd see I'm not proposing to do WP:OR. I'm actually talking about wanting a source for it, for crying out loud! --JorisvS (talk) 09:26, 13 July 2015 (UTC)