→The DRV at 9/9: yup |
→The DRV at 9/9: :) |
||
Line 50: | Line 50: | ||
*Frankly, I have a sense that he's about twelve years old.—[[User:S Marshall|<font face="Verdana" color="Maroon">'''S Marshall'''</font>]] <small>[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]</small> 21:48, 9 September 2011 (UTC) |
*Frankly, I have a sense that he's about twelve years old.—[[User:S Marshall|<font face="Verdana" color="Maroon">'''S Marshall'''</font>]] <small>[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]</small> 21:48, 9 September 2011 (UTC) |
||
:* That would answer a lot of questions, including the user raising autopatrol experience as an issue. In every field, being painted with a brush, fairly or otherwise, has a consequence. In the US, used to be accusing someone of communist membership was enough to derail one's whole life. Then it was accusations of being gay. Or being a sexual predator. Mere accusation carried undue weight, and put the accused in an awkward position of defense. In this arena, being accused of being a paid editor is the new communist. I've got some big problems with someone casually throwing around such mud, even a youngster (especially the unconsequenced youngster). Hence my defensiveness. [[User:BusterD|BusterD]] ([[User talk:BusterD|talk]]) 21:57, 9 September 2011 (UTC) |
:* That would answer a lot of questions, including the user raising autopatrol experience as an issue. In every field, being painted with a brush, fairly or otherwise, has a consequence. In the US, used to be accusing someone of communist membership was enough to derail one's whole life. Then it was accusations of being gay. Or being a sexual predator. Mere accusation carried undue weight, and put the accused in an awkward position of defense. In this arena, being accused of being a paid editor is the new communist. I've got some big problems with someone casually throwing around such mud, even a youngster (especially the unconsequenced youngster). Hence my defensiveness. [[User:BusterD|BusterD]] ([[User talk:BusterD|talk]]) 21:57, 9 September 2011 (UTC) |
||
::*I believe the editor has proven your point. [[User:BusterD|BusterD]] ([[User talk:BusterD|talk]]) 23:04, 9 September 2011 (UTC) |
::*I believe the editor has proven your point. [[User:BusterD|BusterD]] ([[User talk:BusterD|talk]]) 23:04, 9 September 2011 (UTC)' |
||
:::If you have an issue with me, common decency says you address it with me. But I am just 12...--[[User:Cerejota|Cerejota]] <small><sup style="position:relative">If you reply, please place a {{t|talkback}} in my [[User_talk:Cerejota|talk page]] if I do not reply soon.</span></sup></small> 06:19, 10 September 2011 (UTC) |
Revision as of 06:19, 10 September 2011
Nomination of List of Bohemian F.C. players for deletion
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/5/5f/Ambox_warning_orange.svg/42px-Ambox_warning_orange.svg.png)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of Bohemian F.C. players is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Bohemian F.C. players until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. GiantSnowman 14:06, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Threshold and verifiability
Hi. Re "The other part of the problem is the implication that it's acceptable to add untrue material to the encyclopaedia. That implication needs qualifying and defining." - I think the source of that problem is "The threshold" in the statement, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability". This statement can be misinterpreted to mean that verifiability is a sufficient condition for inclusion, without considering requirements from other policies and guidelines, and without consideration of whether or not material would improve the article. I think this would be helped by simply adding the word "first", i.e. "The first threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability". Regards, Bob K31416 (talk) 17:14, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
- I've always preferred "A criterion for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability".—S Marshall T/C 17:28, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
- "A criterion..." is correct. However, I think some people may not like it because it doesn't include the characteristic that "verifiability" is the primary criterion. On the other hand, using "The first threshold..." suggests that "verifiability" is the primary criterion, that there are other criteria to satisfy, and thus "verifiability" is not a sufficient condition for inclusion. Regards, Bob K31416 (talk) 19:42, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
- OMG, I did not realize the intense debates which are trying to claim Wikipedia should be oblivious to the truth, including substituting any other synonym when the word "true" or "truth" describes the actual concerns in WP. The implications for Wikipedia could be devastating: imagine someone ready to write a "truthiness" tool to quickly estimate the "truth level" of an article based on sources, plus common-sense phrases which imply self-promotion or falsehood versus true or objective text, then consider the death of that tool when they read "...not truth" in WP:V. Imagine people trying to find the "true authors" of text which might be plagiarized, but then they read WP:V and think why bother. The oblivion is not just for any random concept, but for "truth" -- long considered the heart of scientific advancement ("objective truth" in Google). I am a pro-active person, and I seek to avoid roadblocks, rather then dismantle them. At this point, I suggest to just help people find true information (avoid false) to add to articles. Meanwhile, it might be possible to dismantle the not-truth roadblock in WP, by continual efforts to reach more concerned editors. However, I will continue to explain the importance of getting true information into Wikipedia, such as reading any expert writings (or blogs), and then finding WP:RS sources which confirm those expert opinions. Many experts know the inside truth, but known sources do not cover the information in that manner. Also, I have an essay, "WP:TRUTHFUL" which begins to explain the importance of true information in WP. Thanks again for taking all the extra time to discuss problems with the phrase "not truth". -Wikid77 (talk) 07:03, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
No plagiarism/arse licking intended
Mr Marshall, I did try to read as much of the commentary about the first sentence of verifiability, but I confess my eyes glazed over half-way through the page (read from last post to earlier ones). I honestly didn't see your von Daeniken comment and came up with it only to avoid quoting a Jim Wales analogy about flat earth theory (to avoid the Jim Wales adoration society status).
I make no apologies about being nerdy in considering philosophical implications, but I see your point about the stick with which to beat the nutcases. I was hoping, though, to make the point that this stick exists without resort to 'not truth'. That is, however, a matter for judgement which I don't intend to make.
Appealing to your greater insight into that debate, would you care to venture a brief explanation as to why the bloody hell such an apparently trivial change has become a matter of such intractable controversy? Regards, Peter S Strempel | Talk 13:50, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
- I believe it's become an intractable controversy because editors fundamentally disagree about what the purpose of the policy is. I think that SlimVirgin, WhatamIdoing, Blueboar, and all the others want to keep their "not truth" because they edit contentious articles and they find that phrase helps them to win content disputes when dealing with inexperienced or bad faith editors who want to advance a point of view. They're either oblivious to the negative consequences of the phrase, or else understand that there are negative consequences but see these as an acceptable price to pay.
Fundamentally, the opposers have a good faith belief in what they're writing. I think their debating tactics have not always been as clean as their motives, but I do understand very clearly where they're coming from.—S Marshall T/C 18:26, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi S Marshall. Do you have access to any publications that will be helpful at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 September 2#Key industries? I've rewritten the article at User:Mrwalis/Key Industries but am uncertain that it will pass another AfD. Thank you, Cunard (talk) 07:20, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
- That's very industrious of you, Cunard, and you've gone up even further in my esteem! I'm afraid I don't have access to any relevant publications for a Canadian industry but I will certainly try to help you improve it.—S Marshall T/C 07:40, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you for the kind words. If you could copyedit or proofread User:Mrwalis/Key Industries and User:Amyabaker/Noddle (see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 September 3#User:Amyabaker/Noddle) for me, I'd be grateful. Best, Cunard (talk) 09:29, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you for the improvements you made to Noddle. By the way, you might be interested in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#RFC on the primary topic of China, where I've proposed that a triumvirate of admins (which you discussed with Mkativerata at User talk:Mkativerata/Archive9#Triumvirate) close Talk:China#Requested move August 2011. Cunard (talk) 09:03, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you for the kind words. If you could copyedit or proofread User:Mrwalis/Key Industries and User:Amyabaker/Noddle (see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 September 3#User:Amyabaker/Noddle) for me, I'd be grateful. Best, Cunard (talk) 09:29, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Nomination of Alex Day for deletion
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/5/5f/Ambox_warning_orange.svg/42px-Ambox_warning_orange.svg.png)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Alex Day is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alex Day (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Lagrange613 (talk) 21:29, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
The DRV at 9/9
I'm getting a tiny bit annoyed at the mud being freely slung by User:Cerejota in the deletion review for Murder of Adrianne Reynolds. Am I being dense? Obtuse? I feel some anger from that user, and I'm not sure it's well-founded or well-placed. Further, it's totally against AGF. I mean, if something is being wrongly tracked, we have ANI, WT:AfD, SPI, any number of forums. Since we're already in an appropriate forum, I'm wondering why that user can't say exactly what is meant. Just casting aspersions is getting us nowhere. Do you have a sense? BusterD (talk) 21:40, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
- Frankly, I have a sense that he's about twelve years old.—S Marshall T/C 21:48, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
- That would answer a lot of questions, including the user raising autopatrol experience as an issue. In every field, being painted with a brush, fairly or otherwise, has a consequence. In the US, used to be accusing someone of communist membership was enough to derail one's whole life. Then it was accusations of being gay. Or being a sexual predator. Mere accusation carried undue weight, and put the accused in an awkward position of defense. In this arena, being accused of being a paid editor is the new communist. I've got some big problems with someone casually throwing around such mud, even a youngster (especially the unconsequenced youngster). Hence my defensiveness. BusterD (talk) 21:57, 9 September 2011 (UTC)