Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:00, 21 July 2009

Politics

I have enjoyed your comments and editorial assistance on my Sandi Jackson and Toni Preckwinkle articles. If you like local politics you might want to review my Jesse Jackson, Jr. article. I have also been working on a darkhorse contender to replace Hillary Clinton in the senate named Byron Brown. I have also had difficulty getting Jack Kemp through the FAC procedure.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:31, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

49TH

I see that you edit ]. as a sidebar someone just added Nicholas Senn High School to the "schools in" list for Rogers Park. Isn't Senn in Edgewater??? Didn't want to edit until I was sure.--Buster7 (talk) 02:56, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Exact neighborhood boundaries are somewhat controversial, but the City has an official community areas map, and the map even has a WP article Neighborhoods of Chicago. By that definition, yes, Senn is in Edgewater. I would concur with your proposed edit. Hugh (talk) 22:58, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Lona Lane

The article Lona Lane has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable living person (c.f. WP:BLP1E, just about). No indication of how she is notable as a person. Cursory mentions in sources focussed on the chicken debate. Nothing substantial. Doesn't look like a merge is available either.

While all contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. - Jarry1250  19:17, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Chicago and Chickens

Let's take another look at that parable about demolishing the house, shall we? Particularly with how it applies to your case.

A man is trying to build a house. He digs a six-foot-deep pit, drops in precisely two pounds seven ounces of brick fragments, sand, and fireplace ashes, and congratulates himself on a job well done. He then goes to the next lot, digs another six-foot-deep pit, drops in another two pounds seven ounces of brick fragments, sand, and fireplace ashes, congratulates himself, goes to the next lot...

A day goes by. The man has moved on to other projects, leaving his pits full of garbage unchanged. The building inspector is busy on the other side of town.

A week goes by. Nothing happens.

Two weeks. Still nothing.

Three weeks. Still nothing.

After a month, the building inspector finally arrives at the pits, stares at them, walks around them, examines them, checks that no one has done anything to them for a month, and reluctantly orders them filled in.

Eventually, the man complains. He had included all the ingredients for a good solid foundation!, he says.

Hugh, it may or may not be possible to create valid articles on those municipal-level politicians. What you created, however, were not even close to that. These were so bad that it was better to have no articles on these people than to have those articles. Your articles - and I actually didn't realize this pun until I was halfway through typing up the analogy - were the pits.

You can do a lot better, Hugh. And if you start the articles from scratch, and don't focus so much on the chickens, then they'll be fine. DS 22:55, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Aldermen

I do respect your work. You often update my articles for Sandi Jackson and Toni Preckwinkle and are one of the few concerned enough to argue with me about content. Let me know when and where the WP:DRV discussion will take place. If you fail at DRV, you can attempt to do what I did for Preckwinkle, which is start a quality article from scratch. You should start with any aldermen that are mentioned in out of state newspapers and national publications. Those will be sure keeps. Aldermen only found in local newspapers will be difficult to argue in favor of. You are familiar with the newsbank that I use for Preckwinkle. Try finding out of state sources for the other aldermen. This information will be helpful in DRV discussions.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:17, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

As I understand your options, you can talk to the person who deleted the works. Tell them that you were not able to reply to the WP:CSD notices and would like a chance to create quality encyclopedic content. I have argued with you and know you are a cogent thinker. I have not seen the content of the aritcles, but am aware that many aldermen pages would not pass WP:N in the form they are in on WP if put up for debate. In fact, some do not have sufficient notable content to be encyclopedic. Note that these are local representatives of a local government body. You must show why an international encyclopedia should include them. Present reasons why the CSDs would have been kept. There are many alternatives available. He may allow the articles to be restored in main space or in your userspace. I would think he would at least allow you to show what you can do for the article in your userspace if not recreate them in mainspace. If the two of you can not work things out, the proper channel is DRV. If DRV is not successful, you can then attempt to recreate articles from scratch like I did with Preckwinkle.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:40, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I believe your efforts to restore the articles will be futile. Your alternatives are to open a DRV or to recreate the articles in a way that will pass WP:N at WP:AFD.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:00, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Being more direct

Hugh, the articles you submitted were neatly-formatted, well-referenced pieces of shit. I'm sorry to say this so rudely, but they were. You did not include anything other than the stuff about the chicken ordinance (well, and the category tags and stub tags).

I am not going to restore the articles, because they don't say anything. If you want, you can start from scratch.

I didn't bother with AfD, or PROD, or even CSD; I just used my own judgment. I saw that the articles were uesless, I consulted with a few other administrators, and they concurred. So I deleted them, with a reasonably explanatory message: "substandard article focusing on chickens <<< no article". This means that it is better to have no articles about these people, than it is to have those articles about these people.

"My understanding is that article deletion should not be used to comment on article content", you said. Aside from the question of whether your understanding is correct, I do not consider that I commented on article content in that way.

Try this for a moment: imagine that you are a career politician, and you have just discovered that there is a Misplaced Pages article about you, and it mentions only how you voted on an ordinance pertaining to chickens. How would you feel? DS 18:59, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

And the articles were 30 days old when I found them. As for the histories being gone... that always happens when we delete articles. DS 19:05, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Being more direct

Hugh, the articles you submitted were neatly-formatted, well-referenced pieces of shit. DragonflySixtyseven 18:59, 21 July 2009 (UTC) (Saving a copy) Hugh (talk) 19:14, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget that I apologized for being so rude. You're a good person, and you've written many good articles before. These were just...aberrations. I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings. Now, stop fussing about the deletions, and go write new versions of those articles. DS 21:08, 21 July 2009 (UTC)