→My PROD tagging: new section |
|||
Line 144: | Line 144: | ||
Comment: Please try to exercise a little more discretion here, and use Google to find sources before PRODing. The subject of this particular deprod was a Prime Minister of Armenia. Reliable sources verifying the existence of a leader of a nation-state are not hard to come by. <strong>[[User:RayAYang|<span style="font-family:Script MT Bold;color:DarkRed">Ray</span>]]</strong>[[User_talk:RayAYang|<sup><span style="font-family:Verdana;color:Gray">Talk</span></sup>]] 21:01, 22 January 2010 (UTC) |
Comment: Please try to exercise a little more discretion here, and use Google to find sources before PRODing. The subject of this particular deprod was a Prime Minister of Armenia. Reliable sources verifying the existence of a leader of a nation-state are not hard to come by. <strong>[[User:RayAYang|<span style="font-family:Script MT Bold;color:DarkRed">Ray</span>]]</strong>[[User_talk:RayAYang|<sup><span style="font-family:Verdana;color:Gray">Talk</span></sup>]] 21:01, 22 January 2010 (UTC) |
||
== My PROD tagging == |
|||
The discretion I use when deciding whether or not to place a PROD tag is simple: is it referenced? If not, I place a tag. If it's poorly referenced, I look a bit deeper, and either place the tag, or stub-ify. I never take much more than a minute or so, and I'm not going to research 50K+ unreferenced BLPs. The tagging has worked, as several of the articles are now being sourced. I'm not going to stop doing it, so I respectfully ask that any notifications that someone has removed the PROD (while adding references) leave out any lectures on that issue. It's not going to change. [[User:Unitanode|<span style="font-family:Georgia;font-variant:small-caps;color:#999999">Unit</span>]][[User talk:Unitanode|<span style="font-family:Georgia;font-variant:small-caps;color:#63739F">'''''Anode'''''</span>]] 23:07, 22 January 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 23:07, 22 January 2010
Here is where I will be manually archiving any DYK or ITN notices.
This page has archives. Sections older than 3 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present. |
I edit some political articles; please read this before accusing me of bias.
My votes in the last four presidential elections: Clinton, Bush, Bush, Obama. I do not have a bias for (or against) any political party.
Question
Hey, I saw your oppose on my RfA, and rather than open a debate there, I wanted to clarify the issue with you first. My statement in ANI (based on WP:SOFIXIT is that since we're all editors first, and it takes 10-15 seconds to PROD an article, why not try to take 2 minutes to find a reference. I even clearly state that if after 2 minutes of trying you still can't find one, get rid of the article. Could you please help me to understand how the comment in your oppose relates to this statement? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:22, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
- My point is that I had misgivings already, and seeing your tacit approval for the overturning of Kevin's deletions of unsourced BLPs put me over the edge. UnitAnode 14:25, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
- Although I gave no such tacit approval - simply suggested we try and fix first, I'm not going to badger you about it. Cheers. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:56, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, I'm curious as to what you meant by it, then. How else could what you suggest be accomplished other than by undeleting the BLPs? UnitAnode 15:12, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
- What I meant is exactly word-for-word what I stated in the first post in this thread. Let me add: I thought we should stop the current deletion process, and address each one as editors, but never suggesting undoing anything (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:21, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
- Your solution, though, replaces maybe hours of work, with days, weeks, or even months of work. Why not simply allow the deletions to proceed, without prejudice against re-creation? To me, that makes more sense than simply leaving thousands of unreferenced BLPs on the project. UnitAnode 15:31, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
- 15 seconds to PROD, 2 minutes to find a single reference, and a minute to return it to stub status - as I said in ANI, there are tens or hundreds of thousands of bios because people look here first - would you rather someone say "geez, this Wikipedia doesn't say anything about the person - what good is it", or "hmm, that's them, they need to add to it"? We're all editors first, and it's better than a project that pretends to be a newbie, isn't it? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:42, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
- I would rather err on the side of caution, period. I know that when I first started out as a registered account, when I typed in "Tom Dula", it redirected to the famous song "Tom Dooley" instead of having an article about the real man himself. What did I do? I researched and wrote a decent little article about him. The way I see it, if someone types in the name of a living person, and doesn't see an article here about them, they'll look up some sources on the person, and construct a far better article than the piles of absolute literary feces that the current crop of unreferenced BLPs consist of at this point. This is a non-negotiable point for me, and I will oppose any admin candidate who stands remotely on the wrong side (as I view it) of the BLP problem. UnitAnode 01:18, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
- It's cool - I really did not want to see an oppose based on a wrong interpretation, yet it's still there. Contrary to what you think, we're not at all on opposite sides of the BLP coin. Anyway, thanks for your time on this. Cheers. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:35, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
- I would rather err on the side of caution, period. I know that when I first started out as a registered account, when I typed in "Tom Dula", it redirected to the famous song "Tom Dooley" instead of having an article about the real man himself. What did I do? I researched and wrote a decent little article about him. The way I see it, if someone types in the name of a living person, and doesn't see an article here about them, they'll look up some sources on the person, and construct a far better article than the piles of absolute literary feces that the current crop of unreferenced BLPs consist of at this point. This is a non-negotiable point for me, and I will oppose any admin candidate who stands remotely on the wrong side (as I view it) of the BLP problem. UnitAnode 01:18, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
- 15 seconds to PROD, 2 minutes to find a single reference, and a minute to return it to stub status - as I said in ANI, there are tens or hundreds of thousands of bios because people look here first - would you rather someone say "geez, this Wikipedia doesn't say anything about the person - what good is it", or "hmm, that's them, they need to add to it"? We're all editors first, and it's better than a project that pretends to be a newbie, isn't it? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:42, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
- Your solution, though, replaces maybe hours of work, with days, weeks, or even months of work. Why not simply allow the deletions to proceed, without prejudice against re-creation? To me, that makes more sense than simply leaving thousands of unreferenced BLPs on the project. UnitAnode 15:31, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
- What I meant is exactly word-for-word what I stated in the first post in this thread. Let me add: I thought we should stop the current deletion process, and address each one as editors, but never suggesting undoing anything (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:21, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, I'm curious as to what you meant by it, then. How else could what you suggest be accomplished other than by undeleting the BLPs? UnitAnode 15:12, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
- Although I gave no such tacit approval - simply suggested we try and fix first, I'm not going to badger you about it. Cheers. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:56, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi
For the record I'm on your side about Saoirse Ronan NOT being American. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.41.252.142 (talk) 21:20, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
BADSITE
I saw your response to Aditya's comment at Everyking's RfA. I think the concern is not the mere fact that Everyking has posted to Wikipedia Review, but rather the content of those posts. I was wondering if you were aware of this message. (I ask because I only became aware of that during the course of this RfA.) That's explicitly encouraging real-life harrassment of another Wikipedia editor at his place of employment, and that's way over the line of what's acceptable. Ever, anywhere — Wikipedia Review or not. I have replied to your comment at the RfA page.
If you want to support Everyking's RfA, feel free — but please don't do it to mock Aditya's legitimate concerns. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:13, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
- While I don't agree with what Everyking posted there (and from what was written, I'm not even sure he was intending for anyone to take him seriously), I've been on the receiving end of the bullying that he was talking about, and I'll say it's not a fun experience. As for "mocking" Aditya's "legitimate" concerns, it's my opinion that if s/he can opposed based on his posting to WR, then I can support based on that, which is what I was basically doing. Regards, UnitAnode 03:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Please lay off the personal attacks
Nothing about this situation is helped by resorting to insults and attacks on the individuals involved. Please stop, and engage constructively and civilly. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:50, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
- Commenting on your asinine behavior isn't a personal attack, it's an attack on your asinine behavior, nothing more and nothing less. Now move along, and let Lar know which ones you're willing to look up sources for, so he can userify them for you. Feel free to post here as often as you want. I find great humor in your self-important blathering. UnitAnode 04:54, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
- I have initiated an ANI report in response to your comment here, and the prior personal attacks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:03, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
- Have fun finding any personal attacks. I'll not be responding to your nonsense there, as I'm getting a bit more work done before I head off to bed. UnitAnode 05:07, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
- I have initiated an ANI report in response to your comment here, and the prior personal attacks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:03, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Re: Deprodding
I assume you were talking about Bernard Comrie and Yuen-Ying Chan. While I agree that Yuen-Ying Chan needs a lot of clean-up, I don't really have interest in the subject, so I'm sorry but I am not planning to work more on it (I found the article while patrolling prods, not from interest in the subject). However, I disagree that deletion is the solution to the problems in that article. The article has sources in it, and those sources support that she won the awards listed, which in turn is enough to pass the notability guidelines. Yes, it would be better if the sources were changed to in-line citations rather than being dumped in the external links section, but deletion won't fix that problem. It would also be good if someone removed any unsourced statements in the article, leaving only those supported by the sources, but having some unsourced statement is very different from being completely unsourced. All the problems in the article can and should be fixed through cleanup. Again, I am sorry but I don't have much interest in the subject and don't want to do the work myself. If you also do not want to do the work to clean up the article, I would suggest trying to recruit someone from one of the wikiprojects listed on the article's talk page.
For Bernard Comrie, I think that is a perfectly fine stub. The website of a major university is a reliable source (they wouldn't let someone claim to be a prefessor unless they really are a professor), and it has been established at Wikipedia:Notability (academics) that being named a "distinguished professor" is enough to show that the subject is notable. Though significant coverage in independant secondary sources is normally needed to show notability, additional guidelines like Wikipedia:Notability (academics) exist to identify other cases where it is also clear that someone is notable. While their isn't much information on the person himself, that is the nature of academics. Though the article is likely to remain a stub, being a stub isn't a problem per se, and I see nothing wrong with the article as it is.
Anyway, if you disagree with what I've said above, feel free to take the articles to AfD. Calathan (talk) 07:25, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for the response. It's pretty clear we view BLPs quite differently, but at least you've attempted to justify your deprodding. Thanks for that. UnitAnode 07:28, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Warning
These are personal attacks: [1] [2] [3]
It so happens that I utterly disagree with the position GWH is advancing here, and that's not the point, but I do recognize your attacks as violations of our rules. If you make comments like these again and I see it, I will block you. Cool Hand Luke 22:38, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
- I was not commenting on him as a person, but rather his behavior. It's not a violation of NPA to comment on the behavior of another user. You'd be well-advised to save your block button for actual problems, instead of threatening to act as some kind of civility police. Blocking me for the diff you posted here would not be acceptable in any way. If Herbert continues to post things that read as blathering nonsense, you'd rather I not called it such? UnitAnode 23:25, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
- I'm thinking that perhaps you'd do well to explain, in detail, how those three diffs (where I commented on his behavior) violate NPA. UnitAnode 23:27, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
- They look bitey Unitanode. They stray from the issue and seem to cast aspersions on another editor.
- I see a double standard in that Admins are allowed to block people they disagree with, which can be very aggressive and antagonistic, but expressions of frustrations like those in the diffs above aren't allowed, but that's how it is. The civility policy and its enforcement is such that no matter how abusive and intolerant someones behavior is, as long as they are cordial and have friends and supporters, they can get away with a lot. But if you get on the wrong side of the civility enforcers (chief of whom is GWH) you'll get no peace.
- You've heard from Luke who agrees with you, and now me who doesn't (hard though it is for me to find myself on GWH's side of the underlying BLP issues in dispute :), just tone it down a notch and keep your comments targeted to the content concerns rather than the other editors involved, no matter how infuriating they are. I will not be offended if this comment is removed. I hope you enjoy your weekend. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:21, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
- They are "bitey" -- towards his behavior. No part of NPA precludes me from calling his behavior what it is. And I fail to see how you could possibly believe that keeping unsourced BLPs is anything other than repugnant. UnitAnode 02:23, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
- As to the first part of your comment, I think most editors would agree that those type of comments aren't... constructive. As to the second part, I don't see any connection between unreferenced articles and BLP violations. The overwhelming majority of articles I've looked at that people are trying to delete in this purge just need improvement and have been created in good faith.Some of them may not be notable, so they can be deleted via the usual process. I haven't seen any BLP violations in them.
- There is a large problem with vandalism, pov pushing, and articles being used to disparage people (and businesses), so I think that's where the focus should be. Deleting the articles that are being targeted doesn't improve the encyclopedia (it makes it worse) and doesn't do anything to address the very real BLP problems, advocacy, bias, or other abuses that go on here. An article with references can be used to attack someone as easily as one without them, and perhaps more so if the refs are misrepresented. Cheers. We'll see how it all plays out. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:16, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
- Okay, you completely lost me when you made the claim that deleting completely unsourced BLPs makes the project worse. That's ludicrous on its face, and I'm done discussing this with anyone who believes such claptrap. I also could do without the civility lectures from someone who once compared their own ideological opponents to Nazis, even going so far as to invoke Holocaust imagery. There's work to be done here (and, right now, sleep to be had), and going back and forth with you on this serves no purpose whatsoever. UnitAnode 05:22, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
- (Note after EC: no one is claiming this solves the WHOLE problem, just that it's a good START. Why don't you take up the gauntlet on checking sourced BLPs for misrepresentations?)
I don't know whether you actually believe that these comments are directed toward behavior, but your claim is false on its face. "self-important blathering," etc. are comments directed at the person (especially considering the measured comments you were replying to). A personal attack is not changed into acceptable commentary through the use of adjectives instead of nouns, and this wikilawyering does not excuse your personal attacks.
As one who agrees with your side of this debate, I wish you would stop clouding the issue with personal digs. It clouds the issue. I believe it actually hurts our cause. I will block you if you continue. Cool Hand Luke 15:48, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
- It's not wikilawyering to say there's a distinct difference between making a comment about a person and making a comment that characterizes what they've written. Characterizing the words someone has written as "self-important blather" is simply a more colorful (and far less boring) way of saying, "I think you are wrong, and that the things you are saying are self-aggrandizing." Blocking for the above diffs would be ill-advised, in the most generous interpretation. I know you're an arbitrator and an administrator, so you wouldn't face any consequences for sullying a block log over such things, but I'd ask you to please find some more constructive use of your time and your tools. UnitAnode 15:53, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
- If I were to call the above comment "blathering self-importance," what would it imply? Well, because your comment evinces no remarkable self-importance (and certainly non relevant to the issue at hand), it would imply that I think you are self-important, and that I'm trying to put a fig leaf on my personal attack with the legal fiction that it's directed toward behavior. Again, this is only a warning; don't do it again, and we don't have a problem. I'm sure you have more constructive uses of your time than attacking GWH. Speak with arguments, not vicious labels. That's all I ask. I'm puzzled that you resist this modest request. Cool Hand Luke 16:17, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
- What I "resist" is the characterization of what I wrote as a "personal attack." And I won't be acquiescing to that characterization, no matter how often you repeat it. I've explained to you that my perception of what Herbert wrote was that it evinced blathering self-importance, and I described it as such. That in no way violates NPA, no matter how you try to characterize my remarks. As I wrote before, surely you have other issues of larger import with which to deal. I've been hearing rumors that there are something like 50K+ unsourced BLPs or something like that. I don't think that issue is less important than dealing with my characterization of Herbert's remarks, but perhaps I'm wrong. UnitAnode 16:33, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
- Just don't do it again. Cool Hand Luke 17:23, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
- What I "resist" is the characterization of what I wrote as a "personal attack." And I won't be acquiescing to that characterization, no matter how often you repeat it. I've explained to you that my perception of what Herbert wrote was that it evinced blathering self-importance, and I described it as such. That in no way violates NPA, no matter how you try to characterize my remarks. As I wrote before, surely you have other issues of larger import with which to deal. I've been hearing rumors that there are something like 50K+ unsourced BLPs or something like that. I don't think that issue is less important than dealing with my characterization of Herbert's remarks, but perhaps I'm wrong. UnitAnode 16:33, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
- If I were to call the above comment "blathering self-importance," what would it imply? Well, because your comment evinces no remarkable self-importance (and certainly non relevant to the issue at hand), it would imply that I think you are self-important, and that I'm trying to put a fig leaf on my personal attack with the legal fiction that it's directed toward behavior. Again, this is only a warning; don't do it again, and we don't have a problem. I'm sure you have more constructive uses of your time than attacking GWH. Speak with arguments, not vicious labels. That's all I ask. I'm puzzled that you resist this modest request. Cool Hand Luke 16:17, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Prodding BLPs
Ryan and Xeno
I see you've started prodding BLPs that are unsourced - that's great work, but can you remember to notify the person who created the page when you've tagged it for proposed deletion? Thanks, Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 14:34, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
- Once I get to articles that have been created relatively recently, I will start doing so. However, as at this point, since I'm working only on articles that are 3+ years old, and have been unsourced for their entire time in the mainspace, I've focused more on checking to see if they're referenced, and placing the tags. Notifying the creators of such old (and unsourced) articles expands the time sink significantly, and isn't practical (at least in my view) on such old unsourced BLPs. If the creator is still active, and has the page watchlisted, they'll see it and either respond or not. UnitAnode 14:38, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
- You might consider using twinkle's prod script, which will do the needful for you. –xenotalk 15:52, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
- I have never used Twinkle (or any automated script, for that matter). Is there some kind of tutorial for it? UnitAnode 15:55, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
- There is WP:Twinkle/doc. Once you enable Twinkle (you can do so by enabling it in gadgets, or adding it to your monobook), there will be a tab along the top that says "prod" (I think). You type (or paste) your rationale, and voila, the article is prodded, and the creator notified. Might even be faster than what you're doing now. (Doesn't work in IE, so I hope you're using a decent browser ;>) –xenotalk 15:59, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
- I have never used Twinkle (or any automated script, for that matter). Is there some kind of tutorial for it? UnitAnode 15:55, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
- You might consider using twinkle's prod script, which will do the needful for you. –xenotalk 15:52, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Off2riorob's complaints, et al
I am sure you think you are doing great work, but you are tagging decent articles, that have clear notability and good external links, it seems excessive way to deal with what is actually not a big problem. I have looked at three of your prods and all of them are worthy articles, you would imo be doing something more creative if you yourself did a simple search and added the citation yourself. Please reconsider what you are doing. Off2riorob (talk) 15:57, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
- Evidently you've now started large scale removal of sourced content from BLPs. You have no concievable justification for doing this - please stop. Hut 8.5 16:01, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
- Then source them, and save them. There are over 50K unsourced BLPs to go through. I haven't PRODed every one that I've reviewed. I also am not going to spend 5 minutes on every one of them. I've reviewed probably around 80-100 so far, and PRODed maybe 2/3 to 3/4 of them. If you review my work, and want to add references, feel free to do so. But this IS a "big problem", whatever you yourself may think, and some of us are choosing to deal with it. If you'd like to help out, by sourcing these articles and saving them, I don't think anyone would have a problem with that. As for "large scale removal of sourced content", that's just a lie. I stub-ify poorly-sourced articles, down to what I can confirm in a quick pass of the source. Take your umbrage elsewhere, Hut. There's work to be done here. UnitAnode 16:04, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
- I am not lying. This edit, in which you turned a BLP into a stub, also removed the fact that he was re-elected in 2008. That sentence was sourced (to CBC), and cannot possibly be construed asa controversial. You are not even bothering to restrict your rampage to unsourced content. I request you apologise for unjustly calling me a liar. Hut 8.5 16:20, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
- And before you claim that was an isolated example, you also removed sourced content here and here. Hut 8.5 16:26, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
- I am not lying. This edit, in which you turned a BLP into a stub, also removed the fact that he was re-elected in 2008. That sentence was sourced (to CBC), and cannot possibly be construed asa controversial. You are not even bothering to restrict your rampage to unsourced content. I request you apologise for unjustly calling me a liar. Hut 8.5 16:20, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
- Perhaps you should limit your proposed deletions to article that you do have time to spend 5 minutes on. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 16:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
- No. The problem is vast. If everyone dealing with it took 5+ minutes on each article, it would be an unimaginable timesink. PRODing is not the problem. Unsourced BLPs are the problem. UnitAnode 16:07, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
There are almost none of them that have issues, some good article you are prodding will get lost, you should stop this immediately, there is nothing desperate to prod them at all, there is nothing derogatory or libelous about them, this is not a big problem at all, please stop now, what you are doing is contentious and I ask you to move to discussion. Off2riorob (talk) 16:08, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
- You can't be serious. They've been unsourced for 3+ years, and you think that "almost none of them have issues"?!? Wow. And, no, I'm not going to stop. It's not contentious, and has support from both the Arbcom motion, Jimmy's statement, and many other respected users. Now feel free to leave me alone. UnitAnode 16:13, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
- Any automated script could mass apply prod tags to articles, we don't want that. If you don't have time to put 5 minutes into each article then that is not helpful. At the end of the day if I don't think you have put much effort into which articles you prod and which you do not then I will likely just remove them. We want quality review of articles, not 30 second examinations and a prod tag stamped on it. We don't want to throw away the good articles with the bad you see. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 16:10, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
- I don't care what you think is "helpful", Chillum. There is a big problem to be dealt with, and I'm attempting to do so. Feel free to source the articles I prod, using 5 minutes of your own time, if you feel it is necessary. UnitAnode 16:13, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
- Any automated script could mass apply prod tags to articles, we don't want that. If you don't have time to put 5 minutes into each article then that is not helpful. At the end of the day if I don't think you have put much effort into which articles you prod and which you do not then I will likely just remove them. We want quality review of articles, not 30 second examinations and a prod tag stamped on it. We don't want to throw away the good articles with the bad you see. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 16:10, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
You should care Unitanode, partially because this is a collaborative editing environment, and partially because prod is only for non-disputed deletion. If I think you have been careless with prod at the end of this day I will remove them. I am telling you this now so that you do not waste your time. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 16:15, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
- If you remove PRODs from unsourced articles, without taking the time to fix the problem, you'll be summarily reverted. UnitAnode 16:17, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
- Unitanode, I suggest you read WP:PROD before engaging in edit warring over the tag(specifically the part that says "If any person objects to the deletion (usually by removing the {{prod}} tag), the proposal is aborted and may not be re-proposed."). If it is removed it should not be placed back. Proposals to give BLP special rules for prod have been rejected by the community. If you don't like how {{prod}} works then there is always AFD. Please don't make this into a battle, we are simply trying to preserve the good articles. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 16:19, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
- I'm telling you, Chillum, if you remove the PROD tag, from long-time unsourced BLPs, without fixing the issue, you will be reverted. It's a bit ironic that you demand that I spend 5 minutes on each article, before PRODing them, but you're unwilling to source them before removing the PROD tag. This is bigger than you, Chillum, as hard as that might be for you to believe. Unsourced BLPs are a major problem. If you want to help, fine. If you just want to obstruct, you'll be reverted. UnitAnode 16:25, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
- At the risk of sounding like a process-wonk, I don't think the process page supports that... –xenotalk 16:28, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
- The BLP concerns evident in a 3+ years-unsourced BLP override the process concerns with readding a PROD tag. UnitAnode 16:36, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
- I am telling you that edit warring to put back {{prod}} templates will likely end in either you being warned and stopping, or you being warned and not stopping and getting blocked. Does it really have to go that way? Must you insist on using a template meant for non-disputed deletions only to delete things when people are disputing it? Is there something wrong with AfD? Perhaps you would be better off proposing a change at WT:BLP or WT:PROD instead of just doing something you know won't end well. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 16:28, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
- And I'm telling you that removal of PRODs from unsourced BLPs, without fixing the problem won't end well for you, Chillum. I'm completely unworried about your silly threats. UnitAnode 16:34, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
- At the risk of sounding like a process-wonk, I don't think the process page supports that... –xenotalk 16:28, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
- Well, I am not going to do the whole "duck season" "rabbit season" back and forth with you. I know I can save the articles, not sure I can do anything to protect you from yourself though. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 16:38, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
- Guys, lets stay calm please. That said, removing a PROD without fixing the problem, at this time, under these circumstances, is unhelpful. Chillum, are you doing that? Don't do it. If you're doing it, stop. Please. Alternatively, I'd be happy to summarily delete any unsourced BLP articles that have the PROD tag removed without being fixed, if you'd rather. ++Lar: t/c 16:53, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
- This is ridiculous, there is no need for this action at all, amongst the articles Unitanode has prodded have been a prime minister of a country and a politician that was ten years a MEP, these articles had multiple external links verifying the notability and the content of what are some valuable articles all they are is without a citation, they aren't libelous or derogatory or damaging in any way. Off2riorob (talk) 16:41, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
- What is utterly ridiculous is that you think there is "no need for this action at all." These articles have been unsourced for over THREE YEARS, Off2riorob! If you want to save them, do so. Provide a reference. Expand them. But do not simply obstruct work being done. UnitAnode 16:43, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
- What is interesting is this widespread belief apparently held by those deleting and prodding that these unsourced BLPs are the source of the BLP problem. 95% of unsourced BLPs are non-contentious and non-problematic, it seems to me (a belief upheld by reviewing cache version of many of the summarily deleted articles). Problems arise often in sourced articles--in fact, I didn't understand what the BLP problem really was until I fought hard for the deletion of a very marginal BLP with nasty stuff being fought over in it, and it did have sources cited. If those doing the prodding would agree to spend at least 5 minutes trying to source each article before prodding, I would agree to spend at least 5 minutes trying to add sources before deprodding. But its devolving into nuclear war at this point perhaps. And out of respect for Unitanode, I will not end with any drama-inducing analogies on his talk page.--Milowent (talk) 19:09, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
- What is utterly ridiculous is that you think there is "no need for this action at all." These articles have been unsourced for over THREE YEARS, Off2riorob! If you want to save them, do so. Provide a reference. Expand them. But do not simply obstruct work being done. UnitAnode 16:43, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Deprods
I have removed the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
tag from Nabila Ebeid, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think this article should be deleted, please do not add {{proposed deletion}}
back to the page. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks!
- Agreed with basis for prod but have added some sources. --Mkativerata (talk) 17:12, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
I have removed the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
tag from Miroslav Kusý, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think this article should be deleted, please do not add {{proposed deletion}}
back to the page. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks!
- As above
deprod on Jean-Claude Guédon
I have removed the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
tag from Jean-Claude Guédon, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think this article should be deleted, please do not add {{proposed deletion}}
back to the page. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! RayTalk 20:34, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
another deprod of Khosrov Harutyunyan
I have removed the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
tag from Khosrov Harutyunyan, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think this article should be deleted, please do not add {{proposed deletion}}
back to the page. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! RayTalk 20:48, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Comment: Please try to exercise a little more discretion here, and use Google to find sources before PRODing. The subject of this particular deprod was a Prime Minister of Armenia. Reliable sources verifying the existence of a leader of a nation-state are not hard to come by. RayTalk 21:01, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
My PROD tagging
The discretion I use when deciding whether or not to place a PROD tag is simple: is it referenced? If not, I place a tag. If it's poorly referenced, I look a bit deeper, and either place the tag, or stub-ify. I never take much more than a minute or so, and I'm not going to research 50K+ unreferenced BLPs. The tagging has worked, as several of the articles are now being sourced. I'm not going to stop doing it, so I respectfully ask that any notifications that someone has removed the PROD (while adding references) leave out any lectures on that issue. It's not going to change. UnitAnode 23:07, 22 January 2010 (UTC)