(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 41: | Line 41: | ||
::You have an obligation to explain this tag. What you wrote above does not fulfill your obligation. [[User:Geo Swan|Geo Swan]] ([[User talk:Geo Swan|talk]]) 23:12, 26 November 2009 (UTC) |
::You have an obligation to explain this tag. What you wrote above does not fulfill your obligation. [[User:Geo Swan|Geo Swan]] ([[User talk:Geo Swan|talk]]) 23:12, 26 November 2009 (UTC) |
||
== Is it appropriate for those who expressed a delete opinion to edit an article during its {{tl|afd}}? == |
|||
This article, was recently nominated for deletion, [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Furkat Kasimovich Yusupov|here]]. |
|||
Following nominating the article for deletion, the contributor who made the nomination, then subsequently made a series of edits to the article: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Furkat_Kasimovich_Yusupov&diff=328045859&oldid=328041359], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Furkat_Kasimovich_Yusupov&diff=328046176&oldid=328045859], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Furkat_Kasimovich_Yusupov&diff=328046356&oldid=328046176], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Furkat_Kasimovich_Yusupov&diff=328046891&oldid=328046356], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Furkat_Kasimovich_Yusupov&diff=328047207&oldid=328046891], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Furkat_Kasimovich_Yusupov&diff=328047611&oldid=328047207], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Furkat_Kasimovich_Yusupov&diff=328057641&oldid=328055224], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Furkat_Kasimovich_Yusupov&diff=328059182&oldid=328057641], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Furkat_Kasimovich_Yusupov&diff=328061712&oldid=328060965] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Furkat_Kasimovich_Yusupov&diff=328068291&oldid=328061712]. |
|||
In their last comment here the contributor who nominated the article for deletion has told me: |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Furkat_Kasimovich_Yusupov&diff=328088535&oldid=328088272 ''"You are edit warring."'']. |
|||
In my experience it is rare for those who have nominated an article for deletion, or who have voiced a "delete" opinion, to subsequently edit the article before the {{tl|afd}} has been concluded. |
|||
It has always seemed to me that the nomination for deletion, or the voicing of a "delete" opinion in the {{tl|afd}}, implies that the contributor realizes they have gone on record that they think the article is hopeless -- that they can not imagine a way for the article to be improved to the point it merited being kept. It seems to me anyone who can see a way to improve the article should not voice a "delete" opinion, or nominate the article for deletion. |
|||
Having gone on record that it is not possible to fix the article I am mystified at what kind of meaningful justification deletion nominators, or deletion voicers could have for their edits. Your deletion opinion means you have given up on the article, so please, let me suggest you let those who think the article merits inclusion, and who think it ''can'' be improved, spend the seven days of the {{tl|afd}} process trying to work at improvements, without your ''"help"''. |
|||
In particular, if you think the article should be deleted, what possible justification could you have for adding tags indicating the kind of improvements you think the article needs? You already explained, in the {{tl|afd}}, your justification for stating that the article could not be improved, didn't you? Why not just leave it at that? If new concerns with the article occur to you, add them to the {{tl|afd}}. There are contributors who are viewing the article, so they can consider whether they want to voice their own opinion on the {{tl|afd}}, and so they can consider which opinion they want to express. Please, let them see the version that represents the best efforts of those who believe the article should be kept, a version without your ''"improvements"''. |
|||
Of course if the closing administrator concludes with a "keep" or "no consensus", those who voiced a "delete", who feel they can make contributions, while respecting our policies and the {{tl|afd}} closure, should then feel free to do so. |
|||
Of course if someone who voices a "delete" sees that a vandal has left an truly unambigous slander, they should feel free to remove the slander. |
|||
Candidly [[User:Geo Swan|Geo Swan]] ([[User talk:Geo Swan|talk]]) 00:16, 27 November 2009 (UTC) |
Revision as of 00:20, 27 November 2009
{{WikiProject banner shell}}
to this page and add the quality rating to that template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.Biography Stub‑class | ||||||||||
|
responsible use of tags
The edit summary of this edit says: "The source does not say that he has been "convicted of terrorism offenses" - change it's position, remove it, provide a quote or change the sentence"
Is this edit summary calling upon the authority of an MOS? Geo Swan (talk) 16:24, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
- Here is the problem you added sources to "...convicted of terrorism offenses" but your sources do not verify that he is convicted of terrorism offenses. This is misleading IQinn (talk) 16:32, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
- All of those sources back up that he is a citizen of Uzbekistan. Some of them back up that he was convicted. I repeat are these tags you keep placing backed up by the authority of a manual of style? If so it is to one, or a section of one, I am unfamiliar with. Is there any way you could see your way clear to name the section of the manual of style, or other wikidocument you think justifies this tag? Geo Swan (talk) 16:39, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
- Your sources are misleading they do not back up that he is "convicted of terrorism offenses". There is no need to place eight sources in a misleading way. Just click on the tag i have edit and it will bring you to the right place [failed verification] IQinn (talk) 16:49, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
- The instructions for {{Not in source}} are at: Template:Not in source. After reading the (brief) instructions, I question whether your use complies with the instructions. I have reproduced the "Use" section of the instructions below. Geo Swan (talk) 18:20, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
- Use
- "Use this tag only if a source is given, you have checked the source, and found that the source says something other than what is contained in the text. Explain in detail on the talk page.
- When the text says multiple things I suggest it is perfectly acceptable to use one reference to substantiate one aspect of the assertions and use another reference to substantiate another aspect. I suggest it is only apropriate for you to raise a WP:VER if the article contains assertions that aren't substantiated by any references. Now maybe there is some assertion that requires a further reference, that I am innocently overlooking. Fine. Then please be collegial, follow the instructions in Template:Not in source and "Explain in detail on the talk page". Geo Swan (talk) 18:20, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
- Sure, i will explain it again for you even i have done this already above. Your text says "...convicted of terrorism offenses" and about 8 of you nine source added to this sentence do not verify that. They do not mention at all that he has been convicted of terrorism offenses. IQinn (talk) 18:49, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
- And, how does that comply with the instructions for the use of this tag, which I quoted above? The tag you used redirects to WP:VER -- and that is only appropriate when there are assertions that are not verifiable from any of the given sources. I have asked you which assertions you are concerned aren't verifiable from any of the existing references. And you haven't named any. Forgive me for concluding this is because you can't. If you can find an unverifiable assertion, you should calmly just quote that assertion, and say what aspect of it is unverifiable from any of the existing references. If you can't specify an assertion which is unverifiable from any of the existing referencces, then you simply should not be using that tag.
- Sure, i will explain it again for you even i have done this already above. Your text says "...convicted of terrorism offenses" and about 8 of you nine source added to this sentence do not verify that. They do not mention at all that he has been convicted of terrorism offenses. IQinn (talk) 18:49, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
- You seem to be trying to suggest that there is something wrong with a statement that says multiple things, like (1) Yusupov is an Uzbek citizen; (2) Yusupov was convicted, and uses some references to substantiate one assertion in the statement, and uses other references to substantiate other parts of the assertion. Some of the references, which substantiate, among other things, that he was an Uzbekistan citizen, are dated to when he had been arrested, and charges were pending, or when he had been charged, and the trial was pending, or to when he had pled guilty, and the sentence was pending. You, loosely, assert that only one of the references substantiated that he had been convicted. Even if that were true, it would be irrelevant. But it is not, in fact, true. Geo Swan (talk) 19:33, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
- How about this article Where you added 54 sources to an statement but none of then full verifies the statement. To add 53 single sources to verify that there are 53 sources does not really makes sense to me. There could be even more. :)) Your methods are a bit strange sometimes. And I still full disagree with you and instead working with me together to solve my concerns you filibuster about policies. The statement is still misleading and should be changed as the 9 links at this place suggest more substance in the sources than there is. You are not addressing the problem. IQinn (talk) 19:48, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
responsible use of the {{misleading}} tag
The misleading tag, when instantiated, directs readers to the talk page to see which aspect of the article triggered the concern of the contributor who placed the tag. The contributor who placed that tag hasn't explained the tag placement. I plan to remove that tag. Geo Swan (talk) 19:38, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
- You are edit warring. Do not remove tags that are about ongoing discussions without consensus. The explanation and issue is discussed in the posting above IQinn (talk) 19:50, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
- You have an obligation to explain this tag. What you wrote above does not fulfill your obligation. Geo Swan (talk) 23:12, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Is it appropriate for those who expressed a delete opinion to edit an article during its {{afd}}?
This article, was recently nominated for deletion, here. Following nominating the article for deletion, the contributor who made the nomination, then subsequently made a series of edits to the article: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9] and [10].
In their last comment here the contributor who nominated the article for deletion has told me: "You are edit warring.".
In my experience it is rare for those who have nominated an article for deletion, or who have voiced a "delete" opinion, to subsequently edit the article before the {{afd}} has been concluded.
It has always seemed to me that the nomination for deletion, or the voicing of a "delete" opinion in the {{afd}}, implies that the contributor realizes they have gone on record that they think the article is hopeless -- that they can not imagine a way for the article to be improved to the point it merited being kept. It seems to me anyone who can see a way to improve the article should not voice a "delete" opinion, or nominate the article for deletion.
Having gone on record that it is not possible to fix the article I am mystified at what kind of meaningful justification deletion nominators, or deletion voicers could have for their edits. Your deletion opinion means you have given up on the article, so please, let me suggest you let those who think the article merits inclusion, and who think it can be improved, spend the seven days of the {{afd}} process trying to work at improvements, without your "help".
In particular, if you think the article should be deleted, what possible justification could you have for adding tags indicating the kind of improvements you think the article needs? You already explained, in the {{afd}}, your justification for stating that the article could not be improved, didn't you? Why not just leave it at that? If new concerns with the article occur to you, add them to the {{afd}}. There are contributors who are viewing the article, so they can consider whether they want to voice their own opinion on the {{afd}}, and so they can consider which opinion they want to express. Please, let them see the version that represents the best efforts of those who believe the article should be kept, a version without your "improvements".
Of course if the closing administrator concludes with a "keep" or "no consensus", those who voiced a "delete", who feel they can make contributions, while respecting our policies and the {{afd}} closure, should then feel free to do so.
Of course if someone who voices a "delete" sees that a vandal has left an truly unambigous slander, they should feel free to remove the slander.
Candidly Geo Swan (talk) 00:16, 27 November 2009 (UTC)