Misplaced Pages

User talk:A Nobody/Archive 21

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< User talk:A Nobody

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MiszaBot III (talk | contribs) at 12:39, 4 October 2009 (Archiving 1 thread(s) from User talk:A Nobody. (ARCHIVE FULL)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 12:39, 4 October 2009 by MiszaBot III (talk | contribs) (Archiving 1 thread(s) from User talk:A Nobody. (ARCHIVE FULL))(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
This is an archive of past discussions with User:A Nobody. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Archive 15←Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22Archive 23→Archive 25

DYK for Hélène Deschamps Adams

Updated DYK query On September 15, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Hélène Deschamps Adams, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Wikiproject: Did you know? 19:09, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Hell yeah! Fantastic! Thanks! Sincerely, --A Nobody 23:48, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

re Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Zoids Graphics and Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Robo Strux

There was nothing sourced on those pages. Cirt (talk) 03:45, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

The information can still be helpful per WP:PRESERVE, i.e. we can merge it as worded, but add sources to confirm it, i.e. copy and paste the verifiable information, but add such reliable sources as references as found here, for example. Best, --A Nobody 03:46, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Mergers of current AfDs again

Hi again. I previously contacted you regarding mergers, specifically for articles currently at AfD (archived to User talk:A Nobody/Archive 19#Mergers). My interpretation of WT:Articles for deletion#Merging during live AfD is that such mergers should be done rarely, with the exception of WP:SNOW for obvious consensus. The support for your view was fairly limited.

It has been pointed out that you have continued to perform these mergers:

Please consider waiting until the AfD has been closed before merging any content. Thanks. Flatscan (talk) 04:12, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I have clarified my claim "The support for your view was fairly limited." Flatscan (talk) 05:17, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Per WP:IAR and WP:PRESERVE, no, if I have information that can actually improve other articles and the article under discussion is not a hoax, libelous, or copy vio, I am going to be WP:BOLD and improve the other articles as should have been done per WP:BEFORE. Any editor who is here to build an encyclopedia will rightfully see that the above examples improved articles on notable games and a major figure of the French resistance in World War II. As compared to everyone I have to argue with in the discussions, my edits improved not only the two articles under discussion, but nearly a half dozen other ones that no editor would contest. THAT should be encouraged and commended. While others just go back and forth with me, I actually work to improve content. I have shown that I am here not to simply kill time and space in AfDs, but to build and improve articles and not even to solely focus on the fictional character ones that some dispute the relevance of; rather, I have shown that I will go beyond the fiction articles with my sources and devote equal time and energy to adding the sourced content to articles concerning real people and the parent game articles as well. Moreover, at worst, those who wanted to delete the character articles could still end up with a redirect, which is a far cry from a keep and again given that the characters are main characters verifiable through multiple reliable sources no reasonable editor would take issue with. Deletion is an extreme last resort. If any of us volunteers ever have the sources available when we happen to be online to improve content, we do it. We do not play games waiting to humor the same usual half dozen odd accounts in the discussion who are not helping to improve content, who in some cases have outright admitted they do not want to look for sources, and who even if the article is improved would still never argue to keep (yes, I can provide diffs of such declarations if necessary). Finally, the guideline merely cautions against it. It does not preclude it altogether and as far as rarely goes, merges from a mere two articles a week among hundreds of other editors is indeed a rarity or minority of my edits overall. As opposed to the above diffs that did more to improve multiple articles than any copy and paste WP:PERNOM or WP:ITSCRUFT, I also have scores of welcomes and happy Labor Day posts the past few days, i.e. perhaps the bulk of what I do here is just trying to make editors feel welcome and appreciated and as such, anyway, I hope you had a nice Labor Day as well! Sincerely, --A Nobody 15:55, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. Unfortunately, I am not convinced that the discussed limitations are unreasonable or that your merges fall within them. I will direct most or all of my responses to the existing discussion at WT:Articles for deletion#Merging during live AfD. Flatscan (talk) 05:17, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
There is a recommended alternative to waiting for the AfD to end: rewrite the content in your own words. This was added in 2006 and mentioned in the recent discussion. Bare refs and an editor copying his/her previous contributions do not require attribution either. Flatscan (talk) 03:50, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Until there is a clear consensus at Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion#Merging_during_live_AfD to perform mergers while AfDs are running, given that it needs admin intervention to undo and interferes with the "delete" outcome, which is a valid outcome in some cases, do not do it again please. ++Lar: t/c 19:25, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

What is more important: improving content when we can or following bureacracy that interferes with our ability to improve the content? Moreover, I only do so in cases that are likely to close as something other than delete anyway and only when it is absolutely certain that the merge locations will benefit from the merger. Sincerely, --A Nobody 19:28, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
What is more important is not being disruptive. You are substituting your judgment (on whether it's a good idea) for consensus, and if you are ever wrong, the work you cause an admin to undo it outweighs any possible benefit. Don't do it again, please. ++Lar: t/c 19:48, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Actually, it causes no work to an admin, because a closure that is something other than delete requires no administrator action. Any user can non-admin redirect. It actually saves admins from having to use the delete function. Afds should not be used as an excuse to disrupt efforts to improve contennt. There is no rule against doing so, only a mere caution to be careful. If the end result is that articles no one would dispute are improved and the content under discussion does not need to be deleted due to some dire legal reason, no reasonable admin closing the AfD would have to undo anything. And again, I only do so in instances where it is clear the discussion is not going to close as delete. At the end of the day, all I know is that my actions as indicated above have resulted in the establishment of an article on a real world historical figure of some reknown and improvement of articles concerning the 30th most successful video game franchise of all time. None of the handful of accounts who said to delete did anything to improve any of these articles. I am confident any neutral observer will recognize that the guy who actually looked for, found, and added sources in an effort to improve a half dozen articles did more for the project than any who just went back and forth in the discussion. I did not merely "vote", but took good faith action with my volunteer time and went above and beyond just improving the articles under discussion, but to also help improve other articles for which no good faith editor would challenge the existence of. We are here first and foremost to build and compendium of knowledge and no one case say with any honesty that with regards to these articles of all the participants in the discussions I have done the most to actually do something for the knowledge these articles present. Sincerely, --A Nobody 19:56, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
If something closes as a delete, and you have previously merged content, that content needs to be un-merged, which IS extra work for the admin. This was explained to you before. You must also realize that there may be cases where you are wrong about how something is going to end up. Substituting your judgment in advance of consensus at an AfD is a bad bet. I am not sure you're listening to what you're being told. ++Lar: t/c 21:20, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Nothing I would merge from would ever be closed by any reasonable admin as delete. In Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Todd Williams (The Young and the Restless), we had verifiable information on a character from a notable show. One editor with a bolded delete actually said in his comment to add it, which I did. The other deletes are litterally carbon-copy textbook examples of WP:JNN that a closing admin would routinely not give much weight. Accordingly, the admin reasonably closed as redirect with edit history intact and as a result of my action, we know have a reference from Google News provided in an article no one in the discussion contested and a redirect that always assists anyone who types in the character's name as well as edit history available should additional sources come available, i.e. an editor can discuss them on the talk page without having to ask an admin to undelete. In Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Isola (fictional island), three articles on the actual games that no one wanted deleted now have references when we did not previously. My actions yet again went beyond just the back and forths in the discussions to improve actual content and that speaks loud enough. I have shown that I am here to build and improve articles not merely argue in discussions and I am unpersuaded by those in discussions who are unwilling to help out with actual content and neither I nor anyone needs to restrict his or herself to placate such self-appointed judges. And in some of these discussions, these accounts have revealed their ignorance of the subjects, calling video game characters cartoon characters, GamePro (one of the leading video game magazine) lumped together with blogs as far as reliability of sources, saying articles with sections on Development and Reception have "no" non-plot information, etc. One of the regulars I encounter in AfDs said he would never argue to keep and has indeed never done so. How can anyone reasonably be expected to do enough to satisfy such an account? Another said he is too lazy to look for sources. Why should thus of us who aren't too lazy have to satisfy someone who is? If AfDs reflected actual academic discourse among experts, okay, but they frequently do not. No one shold be prevented from improving articles no one would contest just to please accounts who admittedly will not lift a finger to help improve that content or who admittedly do not care or know about the subjects under discussion. Sincerely, --A Nobody 13:35, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

A Nobody, I would strongly suggest deleting the entry, asking all editors to keep it on the WP:AFD page. I would suggest telling lar not to post to your page again. You don't have to put up with this from an editor who thinks you are a troll, and defends the personal attacks of editors who call you a troll and the continued harrassment. Ikip (talk) 19:57, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Ikip, I appreciate the suggestion and understand where you are coming from. Lar has done a good deal lately that has made me seriously question his judgment and objectivity. The above comments add to that questioning, but Lar, you know, I actually supported him at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee/CheckUser_and_Oversight_elections/February_2009/Oversight/Lar#Votes_in_support_of_Lar and he seemed to agree with me at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Benjamin Slagle. And as such, I suppose I just want to give anyone as many chances as possible before declaring him or her a lost cause. I guess I am still holding out hope, hopefully not naively, that my earlier impression will return. Sincerely, --A Nobody 20:10, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

List of characters in The Nightmare Before Christmas‎

I'm sort of confused as to how three to one equals no consensus in your mind. It has been over a month, so there is certainly no merit in an argument that it needs more time. If you absolutely need to undo Sally to satisfy your thirst for repetition, I won't fight you on it right now, but can you please actually respect the discussion about the character list? TTN (talk) 17:39, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

That does not make for much of a consensus when two out of three supporting the merge have made comments out of ignorance: (multiple video games, toys, costumes, etc., i.e. more than merely "a single film") and your own talk page comment about how you admittedly are unwilling to look for and source articles. No one needs to humor the former opinion that is factually incorrect, nor the latter that reflects lack of willingness to actual build and improve articles by looking for actual sources. Moreover, just today even, I was able to expand on the out of universe content of the article even further as sourced from Google Books, i.e. article is still being built further. Sincerely, --A Nobody 17:45, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
The only time we ignore comments is when they do not match up with policies and guidelines, not just because you need yet another reason to force an article to be kept. You have added nothing that is too large for the main article, and because the reason for merging the list is to avoid redundancy, you have no reason to ignore the comments. If you want to build articles, focus on the main one, not some pointless spin-off that does nothing but reduce attention that could be used on the film article. TTN (talk) 18:14, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
If comments are false or otherwise made out of ignorance and laziness, yes, they can be disregarded. We are here to build a comprehensive reference guide, not tear it apart. The additional material that you did not merge found in the character list is worthwhile for me and others interested in that franchise. Sincerely, --A Nobody 18:17, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
You know very well that very few people share your opinion that everything that can attain a single source needs to stay. The content fits within the main article, so there is no reason to split it off into a dozen sub-articles that simply repeat the information already covered. We could easily make "Plot of The Nightmare Before Christmas‎", "Development of The Nightmare Before Christmas‎", "Reception of The Nightmare Before Christmas‎", "Cultural Impact of The Nightmare Before Christmas‎", and so on. But why would we want to do so when the content is just going to be completely redundant? It's the same thing for the characters of a single film (and no, a couple of video games do not make it a franchise). TTN (talk) 18:26, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Please do not t---h---e t---r---u---t---h. This article can contain at least a dozen or more sources. If you do not think multiple video games, toys, and scores of other items does not make a franchise, then you do not know what you are talking about. These characters are relevant to not just the film's page, which is why we have them elsewhere on their own page. Sincerely, --A Nobody 18:28, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
And? That does not change the fact that the information still fits into the main article without increasing the size substantially or putting too much weight on one topic. Franchises are only determined by the pieces of media that make them up. One film and two spin off video games do not make a franchise, and minor games like those are often merged to the main article anyway due to a lack of decent information. Whatever the case, you still do not have an argument as to why the other comments should be ignored beyond your own personal bias belief that everything deserves an article. TTN (talk) 18:44, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
You have not yet made any argument as to why we would not have such an article, beyond the extremist personal bias that Misplaced Pages should have no articles on fiction. A major film that has been rereleased even with multiple DVD/Bluray releases, whose soundtrack has also been rereleased, appears in few games, toys, costumes, etc. is a franchise by ANY reasonable definition of the term as understood here. We can only have a reasonable discussion when both of us are actually familiar with the subject under discussion. Have you ever seen the film or played the games? What specific sources have you looked for and where? How have you tried to integrate these sources into the list? If any replies to these questions are negative, then I encourage you to instead work on content for which you do have even amateur knowledge and where you can be of help. Thanks! Sincerely, --A Nobody 19:01, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
The information is mostly identical to the information in the main article. The main article is nowhere near the size where a split would be necessary, so there is no reason to have the list. That's a good reason that is also backed by two other people. Given that I'll spend a considerable amount of time trimming down character lists for actual series, I don't see how anyone can make the claim that I don't support articles on fictional topics. I just hate the superfluous jumbles that you attempt to pass off as decent articles. That is not the definition of a franchise. That's the definition of a cult film (though without the poor reception). I've told you before; I have no interest in finding sources. My way of improving this site is to get information on fictional topics to the point where it can be easily edited without having to wade through giant globs of plot and trivial details. TTN (talk) 19:15, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
If you are unwilling to make ANY effort to find sources per WP:BEFORE and WP:PRESERVE, then you are not helping to improve this site and I cannot take you as a serious editor. We can only be expected to have academic discussions with those who have at least rudimentary familiarity with the subjects under discussion and will make at least some good faith effort to demonstrate that they actually researched the subjects as well. If you merged the ENTIRE character list, then okay, but whether you care about it or not, other editors and readers obviously do find the so-called minor characters' information worthwhile here and I see no reason why we would not give the people what they want. And yes, it meets the definition of a franchise. That particular point is not even debateable. Sincerely, --A Nobody 19:19, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Can you please stop with the whole "I'm so much better than you" attitude? Editors do not have to search for sources. They can go around fixing only minor spelling errors if they feel like it. I like removing unnecessary details, and that doesn't make any less of a real editor than yourself. Even if I had merged the entire article word for word, you still would have reverted it. Again, you see no problem with the content, but that does not mean that others feel the same way. That brings us back to the point that you still have no right to ignore those opinions when they do not contradict any existing policies and guidelines. TTN (talk) 19:33, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
An editor who does nothing beside fixing minor spelling errors is indeed a welcome contributor to a project, because such grammatical and typograpical edits are not likely to generate any controversy. By contrast, editors who want to go around wholesale indiscriminately removing, nominating for deletion, and redirecting content darn well do need to look for sources per WP:BEFORE and as common courtesy to those who actually do contribute contnet. You like removing details that YOU subjectively deem unnecessary. Why "subjective," for the very reason that you do not look for sources, i.e. are not educating yourself on the actual subjects, but just unilaterally decideing WP:IDONTLIKEIT and then indiscriminately removing it. Just because you do not care for something does not mean that others agree. Please stop ignoring WP:PRESERVE and acting in total disregard of the opinions of the thousands of editors who contribute content and millions of readers who come here looking for it. Thank you. Sincerely, --A Nobody 19:39, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
It's not information that I don't like; it's information that fails WP:NOT#PLOT, WP:OR, and WP:N and that other people believe should be removed as well. Half of the time, I work on series that I've recently read or watched. When the content is useless, cleaning it does nothing, and there is no need to give "common courtesy" to people who have only worked on something that fails multiple guidelines. You're not helping people by doing what you do. You just keep information spread rather than just allowing more decent articles to develop. TTN (talk) 19:55, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
How many GA, DYK, etc. credits do you have? I have at least a couple. Myself and others do not appreciate being lectured to by anyone who has no evidence of knowing what goes into building actual content. It is merely information you do not like. WP:NOT#PLOT is disputed and has been for years and in many of these cases, when someone actually does look for sources, he/she is able to make the articles not just plot, something you should do. Just because an article is currently mostly plot does not mean sources do not exist on development and reception that can fix that article rather than just going with a lazy redirect. The same for so called original research. And as for WP:N, well, that too is one of the most disputed concepts on Misplaced Pages that the community by and large has no real consensus on as discussion after discussion has shown. Editors agree we should have some kind of inclusion criteria, but the fine points are interpreted subjectively for the most part. What is deemed "useless" to you is typically not to others or else they would not waste their volunteer time writing it or coming here to read it. Instead of helping people and looking for and adding the sources that actually would make these articles meet these much disputed and ever changing guidelines, you just get rid of it. It may be harder work to look for sources, but it is also more rewarding in the long run. Sincerely, --A Nobody 20:00, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
I have more GA's, A's and FA's than you. Does that mean I have more expertise than you? Does that make my e-penis mightier? Whatever, I was hoping to see established people were above that on wikipedia at this point but I guess not.
Anyway I agree with TTN's point, that the article is in the end not necessary. Jack Skellington is already a separate article and really the most notable of the lot, the rest are fine to merge/redirect.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:23, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks...

...for this. Drmies (talk) 21:01, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

You are welcome. I also left a "no personal attack" warning on the IP's talk page. Sincerely, --A Nobody 21:02, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Closing

You can close: Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion#Some_ideas_for_reform the conversation has seemed to degenerate as I expected it would. Just add the {{collapse top|REASON FOR CLOSURE}} {{collapse bottom}}. This is exactly what I did above this discussion with the google hits suggestion.

In the future, make the suggestion on several other editors talk pages, build a rough consensus, then expose it to the brutal and nasty AFD page, or skip the AFD page altogether and go to a RFC. Ikip (talk) 21:29, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

If you would like to close it, go ahead, or just ignore it as once it became obvious that bad faith, dishonesty, etc. has taken over, I stopped reading the discussion. Take care! TGIF, right! Sincerely, --A Nobody 00:48, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:JNN

A couple of points on your use of this: it refers to AFD arguments that state only non-notable and nothing else. The way you have used it in several recent discussions makes it appear as though you dismiss any argument that uses the words "non" and "notable" together as completely invalid. You might also want to read the introduction to WP:AADD, which points out that "As this essay tries to stimulate people to use sound arguments in deletion discussions, it is important to realize that countering the keep or delete arguments of other people, or dismissing them outright, by simply referring them to this essay is not encouraged". Stifle (talk) 14:48, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Just my $0.02 as a friendly TPS, but perhaps WP:JUSTAPOLICY would apply in some of these cases? I often find people claiming "x isn't notable" but they fail to show why and more often than not even a cursory search of Google Books or Google Scholar turns up material that can be integrated into the article. --Tothwolf (talk) 16:12, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


RFC/USER discussion concerning you (A Nobody)

Hello, A Nobody. Please be aware that a request for comments has been filed concerning your conduct on Misplaced Pages. The RFC entry can be found by your name in this list, and the actual discussion can be found at ], where you may want to participate. MBisanz 06:20, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Military history coordinator elections: voting has started!

Voting in the Military history WikiProject coordinator election has now started. The aim is to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of sixteen candidates. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on 26 September!
For the coordinators,  Roger Davies 22:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I shall check it out next. Best, --A Nobody 13:40, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

NOTE TO SELF: I have reviewed and supported all candidates except for EyeSerene, Juliancolton, Nick-D, and Parsecboy. Try to remember to do so for them prior to 26 September 2009. Sincerely, --A Nobody 16:07, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Help request!

{{helpme}} To whomever can help, I would like the Diderot and Jimmy Wales quotations on my userpage to have their references show up in a reference section at the bottom of my page, but I am for some reason not see them there. Could some please fix that? Thanks! Sincerely, --A Nobody 17:22, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

See the problem. No solution yet. SunCreator (talk) 17:32, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Maybe a thread at the tech pump could help? I tried to fix it, but I'm clueless as to why the error is occurring. --Dylan620 (contribs, logs) 17:35, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the efforts! I will try the tech pump! Best, --A Nobody 17:37, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
woops, done the same. SunCreator (talk) 17:41, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, great minds think and act alike, I guess! :) Best, --A Nobody 17:42, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
As this is now at the tech pump, I have removed the helpme notice. J Milburn (talk) 18:10, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Okay, take care! Sincerely, --A Nobody 18:12, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: Talk page help request

Thanks for the info, I saw that when I issued another warning on that guy's user talk page. But then I happen to refuse to answer such childish requests about anyone's awesome vandalism ;) Cheers. De728631 (talk) 18:37, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, just thought I would give you a heads up! Best, --A Nobody 18:38, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

A suggestion

Hi, if you need a bit of time to collect your thoughts before responding fully at the RfC, it would be a good idea to leave a few brief words there to say that a full response will be forthcoming later. Here's hoping matters turn out well--it's meant to be constructive and productive. Best wishes. Durova 02:29, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages Signpost: 21 September 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 22:56, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Lamia

Hi - I can't undelete it, but I have userfied it to User:A Nobody/Lamia so you can work on it. If you think you've solved the problems with it, contact me, or if I'm not about, go to WP:DRV. Thanks, Black Kite 23:35, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for Kady Malloy

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Kady Malloy. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Facha93 (talk) 17:54, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

User talk:A Nobody/Archive 21 Add topic