User talk:Ged UK/Archives/2011/June
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
Declined speedy of article only asserting that entity is part of a notable group
Hello . You declined speedy deletion of Westview Press, on the basis that: "Being part of a notable group is enough for A7." I'm having difficulty finding that rubric in A7. Can you perhaps point me to it? Many thanks. You can reply here. Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:16, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) A7 does not list every possible or common reason why something fails it but being part of a notable group means that said part is likely to be at least somewhat more significant than articles that should meet A7. A7 not only fails when something is important or significant but when there is any credible reason to believe that it might be. If I may spam my own essay here, I collected common reasons why A7 is declined at WP:A7M for future reference. Regards SoWhy 19:00, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
- I'll be interested in GED's reply. The speedy deletion criteria are well-worn and long-discussed reflections of community consensus. The assertion of the decliner was not couched in an IMHO tone -- but rather as though it was policy. Something so monumentally at odds w/our other detailed policy -- there are tons of people and entities that are part of notable groups, and being part of a notable group is certainly not notable in and of itself to the extent that it qualifies every member of the group to a wp article -- should/would be reflected in the policy if it were the case. I appreciate your efforts at your essay, but (as distinct from a guideline) that seems to reflect your personal view -- the same as it would if you simply posted the language here, and did not call it an essay -- and does not by its editing history suggest robust input from the community.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:08, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
- I was merely trying to help. May I point out that your argument is at odds with our policy as well? Being "notable" is not required by A7, which uses a much lower standard of its own by design. As such, no other policy or guideline can be used to interpret A7. What constitutes a "credible claim of significance or importance" is not defined anywhere though. But a declined A7 does not mean that the subject should have an article here or even that the admin thinks that it should. It just means that if deletion is desired, it has to be pursued using a different venue. But I, too, will be interested in Ged's reply. Regards SoWhy 19:29, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
- I appreciate your effort to help. I agree that notability is not required for A7, but simply the lower standard of "significance or importance". But it is IMHO reasonable to point out that the rationale advanced by GED as policy is not -- far as I can tell -- in the policy. And at the same time it is fine to show that the non-policy rationale is at odds with the thinking in the notability regime that simply being part of whatever we need for a "keep" is not sufficient. That's not dependent on what the criteria is -- it is simply a recognition that while a pie might be significant, that does not attribute significance to every slice of it. Whatever the pie is.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:45, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
- A7 covers "An article about a ... organization (e.g. band, club, company, etc., except schools)... that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant." Indicate is a somewhat specious term that is open to interpretation. However, my view is that being a constituent element of another organisation notable enough to have its own article is sufficient indication of importance or significance that A7 does not apply in my opinion. CSD generally, and A7 in particular, is very open to interpretation by the admin who's actioning it. I apologise if my rationale didn't clarify that it's my opinion. GedUK 11:45, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for clarifying. So -- just so I get this right -- while it is general wp policy that even if a band is worthy of a wp article, that in itself is not sufficient for every band member to be deemed worthy of a wp article, you take precisely the opposite view when it comes to speedy deletions? The same with every subsidiary of a notable company (some notable companies have dozens of subs), etc? Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:13, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- There's a critical difference between 'worthy of an article', and passing A7. In your example, if someone created an article on a band member of a 'notable' (that the band's article exists and wasn't created by the same person at the same time) band, then, in my opinion, that is an indication of importance sufficient for A7. GedUK 12:31, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for clarifying. So -- just so I get this right -- while it is general wp policy that even if a band is worthy of a wp article, that in itself is not sufficient for every band member to be deemed worthy of a wp article, you take precisely the opposite view when it comes to speedy deletions? The same with every subsidiary of a notable company (some notable companies have dozens of subs), etc? Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:13, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- A7 covers "An article about a ... organization (e.g. band, club, company, etc., except schools)... that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant." Indicate is a somewhat specious term that is open to interpretation. However, my view is that being a constituent element of another organisation notable enough to have its own article is sufficient indication of importance or significance that A7 does not apply in my opinion. CSD generally, and A7 in particular, is very open to interpretation by the admin who's actioning it. I apologise if my rationale didn't clarify that it's my opinion. GedUK 11:45, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- I appreciate your effort to help. I agree that notability is not required for A7, but simply the lower standard of "significance or importance". But it is IMHO reasonable to point out that the rationale advanced by GED as policy is not -- far as I can tell -- in the policy. And at the same time it is fine to show that the non-policy rationale is at odds with the thinking in the notability regime that simply being part of whatever we need for a "keep" is not sufficient. That's not dependent on what the criteria is -- it is simply a recognition that while a pie might be significant, that does not attribute significance to every slice of it. Whatever the pie is.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:45, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
- I was merely trying to help. May I point out that your argument is at odds with our policy as well? Being "notable" is not required by A7, which uses a much lower standard of its own by design. As such, no other policy or guideline can be used to interpret A7. What constitutes a "credible claim of significance or importance" is not defined anywhere though. But a declined A7 does not mean that the subject should have an article here or even that the admin thinks that it should. It just means that if deletion is desired, it has to be pursued using a different venue. But I, too, will be interested in Ged's reply. Regards SoWhy 19:29, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
- I'll be interested in GED's reply. The speedy deletion criteria are well-worn and long-discussed reflections of community consensus. The assertion of the decliner was not couched in an IMHO tone -- but rather as though it was policy. Something so monumentally at odds w/our other detailed policy -- there are tons of people and entities that are part of notable groups, and being part of a notable group is certainly not notable in and of itself to the extent that it qualifies every member of the group to a wp article -- should/would be reflected in the policy if it were the case. I appreciate your efforts at your essay, but (as distinct from a guideline) that seems to reflect your personal view -- the same as it would if you simply posted the language here, and did not call it an essay -- and does not by its editing history suggest robust input from the community.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:08, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Tyler "Telle" Smith image file help
Hey there, sorry if this sounds a tad noobish but I don't seem to understand how to rename image files and there is a particular image uploaded under an inapropriate name which consists of several numeric characters and is against the guideline of naming. Could you perhaps move the image to a more appropriate name such as "Telle performing in 2011" or whatever you may desire? Just kind of wanted to get this issue out of the way. -- GunMetal Angel 23:16, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- It's a commons file, so I can't change it. You need to login to Commons and add
{{rename|newname.ext|reason}}, and an admin there will sort it. I'm not a commons user (2 edits I think), so I'm no expert! For normal WP files, you need to be a filemover. Sorry I can't help more! GedUK 13:31, 4 June 2011 (UTC)- Haha, it's cool bro. You did help though. -- GunMetal Angel 21:03, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 6 June 2011
- Board elections: Time to vote
- News and notes: Board resolution on controversial content; WMF Summer of Research; indigenous workshop; brief news
- Recent research: Various metrics of quality and trust; leadership; nerd stereotypes
- WikiProject report: Make your own book with Wikiproject Wikipedia-Books
- Featured content: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: Two cases pending resolution; temporary desysop; dashes/hyphens update
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
Reply to your protection decline
I've replied. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 1:59 9 June 2011 (UTC)
- You'll have help me out; which article, where did you reply? GedUK 11:44, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
- At the request for page protection page. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 11:46 9 June 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 13 June 2011
- News and notes: Wikipedians 90% male and largely altruist; 800 public policy students add 8.8 million bytes; brief news
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Aircraft
- Featured content: Featured lists hit the main page
- Arbitration report: More workshop proposals in Tree shaping case; further votes in PD of other case
- Technology report: 1.18 extension bundling; mobile testers needed; brief news
Question
Just asking about this, but do you have any idea where the cite template option went while in edit mode? I can't find it anywhere on the menu. =| • GunMetal Angel 10:31, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
- Do you mean on the edit bar (the blue bit above the text box with all the icons in)? If so, it's still on mine on the right hand end, though sometimes on different browsers it's on the left. If not, you might have to ask at Village pump technical. GedUK 11:48, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
im mark cantrell manager of a major rapper in atl
i was asking could you please help me create a article for my artist — Preceding unsigned comment added by CHASE6784 (talk • contribs) 07:17, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
- You need to find and provide some sources. These need to be independent 3rd party ones, like reviews of shows or albums, biographies, that sort of thing. Can be web based or paper, TV or radio, but it needs to be verifiable; that is someone else could go and check it out if they wanted to. GedUK 10:01, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 20 June 2011
- News and notes: WMF Board election results; Indian campus ambassadors gear up; Wikimedia UK plans; Malayalam Wikisource CD; brief news
- WikiProject report: The Elemental WikiProject
- Featured content: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: One case comes to a close; initiator of a new case blocked as sockpuppet
There is some controversy about the term Taegeuk. You should read more information about Chinese culture, and you may know that Koreans are good at stealing other people's culture, like Chinese Duanwu Festival. They even say that Chinese characters are created by ancient Koreans. And you should also know that South Korea was a former vassal state of China, so they learned a lot from China. The Taegeuk is just like Chinese Taijitu, there is some difference between them because Koreans had changed that, but this should not change this fact: It originated in China. S. Liu (talk) 04:03, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
PS: It is NOT a Vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.195.68.161 (talk) 13:49, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Not done: Ged UK will respond when he gets online. You don't need to put an {{editprotected}}on his talk page. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:17, 22 June 2011 (UTC)- All you were doing was removing sources that said it was Korean. Provide reliable sources that suggest it has Chinese origin, and that can go in as well. Just repeatedly removing sources you don't agree with is vandalism. The place for this discussion is the article's talkpage. GedUK 07:37, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
- It is not about my subjective opinions, it is the truth, just check the term Taijitu. I repeatedly removing the sources I don't agree with because someone did the samething to me. You can check the edit history.
S. Liu (talk) 08:19, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Just check Taijitu please.
PS: Why do you think the current entry is correct? S. Liu (talk) 07:52, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
- Repeatedly removing sources you don't agree with without discussion is vandalism. Information on wikipedia must be verifiable, simply stating it's the truth isn't enough. Verifiability, not truth. GedUK 11:31, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
- For clarity, I have no opinion on whether the current version is 'correct', just that it's verifiable. GedUK 11:39, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
- What do you mean about "verifiable"? Can a website do this job? Because I can find a lot of websites holding the opposite point of view about Taegeuk. In Taegeuk, there are some websites that can not be verifiable. Let's stop the argument here, I will not re-edit it until I get more
convincing evidence. Thank you! S. Liu (talk) 11:50, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
- Please read Verifiability and Reliable sources for information on what I'm talking about. GedUK 12:17, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
manager of a rapper in atlanta
hello im marc cantrell manager of 45 tha feva of c.t.e we are trying to make his wiki article but we seem to be having problems 45 tha feva has all types of facts about him on google he has music with gucci mane and more i am asking could you help us im willing to send money to you also my email is thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by CHASE6784 (talk • contribs) 07:38, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
- I've hidden your email address. As I mentioned above, you need to provide sources; news stories about him rather than just mentioning him, reviews of his work in reliable sources (notable hiphop magazines is good) that sort of stuff. It needs more than just he was involved in a fight with someone else, mainly because those articles focus on other people, not your man. GedUK 11:38, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks
Your work at RfPP is well appreciated and whenever I see your sig, and I'm sure this is a shared view, it shows we're being left in good, capable hands :)
 |
Ged UK has been inducted into the Order of the Mop, |
 |
You are member number: 47
Thanks Ged. —James (Talk • Contribs) • 10:17pm • 12:17, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Just out of curiosity...
Is Robert Bruce (bastard) an appropriate article name? I found this just randomly and well, I don't exactly find it titled favorably. • GunMetal Angel 17:00, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- Hmm. Technically, he was a bastard, ie an illegitimate child. Robert Bruce is a redirect to Robert the Bruce, hsi considerably more famous father. Lord Bruce already refers to a former Australian PM, so the obvious options are already gone. The MOS doesn't really, slightly surprisingly, talk about 'rude' words in article titles, and I'm not sure that this is an inappropriate word in this case and context anyway.
- Short answer: I don't see it's a problem, but if you've got a suggestion, then feel free to move it. GedUK 11:39, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Hello:
I've seen deleted my article because of that:
"This page has been deleted. The deletion and move log for the page are provided below for reference.
20:03, 1 June 2011 Ged UK (talk | contribs) deleted "Pol-primett (project)" (A7: No indication that the article may meet the guidelines for inclusion (CSDH))"
Let me explain you that Pol-primett is an European-funded project as for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chordmed_%28project%29
Pol-PRIMETT - Police-Private Partnership to Tackle Metal Theft is a transnational project involving the UK, Italy, Spain, Greece and Bulgaria. Pol-PRIMETT will create a police and private sector partnership that will share intelligence and best practice to reduce metal theft. Metal theft is a major problem not only in the Yorkshire and Humber region but across Europe.
It's for that reason that I would thank you if the article would be again visible.
Thank you very much.
Best regards,
Marina. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uegva (talk • contribs) 14:52, 21 June 2011 (UTC) .
- There was no indication as to why the project would be notable by Wikipedia's standards. Just receiving EU funding is not enough. Can you provide independant sources, such as newspapers, journals etc that talkk about the project, then I can reconsider. As it is, there isn't enough indication as to the importance of the project. Regards, GedUK 11:31, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
- The article has been re-created, no real sources.I PRODded it, but perhaps it qualifies as a speedy, too. I'd appreciate if you'd have a look. --Crusio (talk) 11:15, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- I see that it's now at AfD. I'm happy to leave it there, so that the community can decide, and that User:Uegva can see it's not just one person's opinion if it comes down as delete. It also gives us more scope for deleting it as a recreation (G4 I think) if it comes back unimproved later. GedUK 11:28, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- Right, let's deal with this once and for all... I just PRODded a whole bunch of these (also poorly written) EU project articles. These projects typically exist for 5 years and then disappear. The individual components of these consortia are sometimes notable, the projects rarely (although there may be the odd exception). --Crusio (talk) 11:34, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- I see that it's now at AfD. I'm happy to leave it there, so that the community can decide, and that User:Uegva can see it's not just one person's opinion if it comes down as delete. It also gives us more scope for deleting it as a recreation (G4 I think) if it comes back unimproved later. GedUK 11:28, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- The article has been re-created, no real sources.I PRODded it, but perhaps it qualifies as a speedy, too. I'd appreciate if you'd have a look. --Crusio (talk) 11:15, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi there! As you can see here, the Semi-Protection of the article expired on June 19, and vandalism started really soon and we had to protect the page, again. It would be in best interest if we extend the protection of the article till the Transfer Period ends, i.e., 1 September, 2011. Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 13:20, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- I've already protected it till 29th June. Let's see how that goes. Sometimes I think it would be easier to just protect all footballer articles during the transfer windows! GedUK 07:36, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
- Same here!
Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 13:20, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- Same here!
The Signpost: 27 June 2011
- WikiProject report: The Continuous Convention: WikiProject Comics
- Featured content: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: Proposed decision for Tree shaping case
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
Just a header
"I'm a human being, and being insulted isn't nice." You made your choice when you sided with the self-righteous hateful ignorant hypocrites forcing their idealized views of how other peoples should be labeled and regarded. Of course it had to be another WASP forcing his condescending arrogant bigotry as "consensus." People like you are the reason why people like me are treated like aesthetic freaks every damn day by an intellectually-dependent society which gets spoonfed the same hateful stupidiy and social lies that you enable. You made your decision now live with the consequences. Guilty by association. Vete al infierno. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.254.173.2 (talk) 12:44, 30 June 2011 (UTC)