User talk:John from Idegon/Archive 14
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:John from Idegon. 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 10 | ← | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | → | Archive 20 |
The Signpost: 01 April 2013
- Special report: Who reads which Wikipedia?
- WikiProject report: Special: FAQs
- Featured content: What the ?
- Arbitration report: Three open cases
- Technology report: Wikidata phase 2 deployment timetable in doubt
Questions for a Signpost interview
- I hope you SEE this: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/WikiProject desk/Interviews3. Your input is invaluable. ```Buster Seven Talk 18:50, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
The Signpost: 08 April 2013
- Wikizine: WMF scales back feature after outcry
- WikiProject report: Earthshattering WikiProject Earthquakes
- News and notes: French intelligence agents threaten Wikimedia volunteer
- Arbitration report: Subject experts needed for Argentine History
- Featured content: Wikipedia loves poetry
- Technology report: Testing week
The Signpost: 15 April 2013
- WikiProject report: Unity in Diversity: South Africa
- News and notes: Another admin reform attempt flops
- Featured content: The featured process swings into high gear
The Signpost: 22 April 2013
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Editor Retention
- News and notes: Milan conference a mixed bag
- Featured content: Batfish in the Red Sea
- Arbitration report: Sexology case nears closure after stalling over topic ban
- Technology report: A flurry of deployments
The Center Line: Spring 2013
 | ||
| Volume 6, Issue 2 • Spring 2013 • About the Newsletter | ||
|
|
|
| Archives • Newsroom • Full Issue • Shortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS | ||
Greetings Gtwfan52,
This is gagegs (Gina), and I wanted to thank you for your help and advice on the Rittenhouse Elementary School article. I will be jumping back in the fray tomorrow, but felt I would be remiss in not acknowledging you today. This whole Wikipedia experience has been absolutely wonderful, and I am so excited to be joining this new (to me) world. You have made my first steps very easy and enjoyable, and I appreciate your efforts so much.
Now off to my non-Wikipedia world.
Cheers, gagegsGagegs (talk) 23:01, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Deletion
As to your deletion here, appropriate refs are fine in lieu of a wp article.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:53, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
- Enough referencing to reliable sources to show notability sufficient to support a biographical article is fine. A mention in one publication that a man may have ridden with a person who would later be President is not that. Gtwfan52 (talk) 03:58, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
- That's not what I read your edit summary to state, as your reason for deleting the entry. Your edit summary gave as your reason for deletion: " notability is generally established by the existence of a Wikipedia article on the subject."--Epeefleche (talk) 04:02, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
- That too is the generally accepted criteria for many, if not all, here at Wikipedia. Does it serve anyone to dredge up the exact policy WP:NLIST? Most school articles are edited primarily by SPA editors and telling them that they can add anyone they want if they can reference it is not really productive. Sorry if you disagree, but you will not sway me. I have edited thousands of school articles in my time here and it has never really served any useful purpose in any of them to encourage the adding of unlinked or red linked subjects. A military officer is not notable unless he did something notable. You don't inherit notability from who your commander was any more than you would from your father. Gtwfan52 (talk) 04:09, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
- That's incorrect. (and -- if it were correct, I don't understand why that would have not been your first response, above). See wp:listpeople {"If a person in a list does not have an article in Wikipedia about them, a citation (or link to another article) must be provided to establish their membership in the list's group and to establish their notability on either BLP1E or BIO1E."}. As to you having made many edits -- kudos. I've made ten times as many. That's irrelevant. We shouldn't be making up rules that are not rules, and acting as though they are. That's simply not cricket.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:16, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
- The policy you quoted says exactly what I stated above. I don't see your problem. You have to have enough referencing to support an article viz. notability and your references have to connect the subject to the article containing the list. That was not there for the fella at hand. Additionally, there is a Twinkle warning that states "Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Your recent edit appears to have added the name of a non-notable entity. In general, a person or organization added to a list should have a pre-existing article to establish notability. If you wish to create such an article, please confirm that your subject is notable according to Wikipedia's notability guideline. Thank you." So, like I said, I'm going to have to agree to disagree with you. Happy editing! Gtwfan52 (talk) 04:25, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
- My problem is that you deleted material on the basis of an edit summary that incorrectly stated what the rule is. You deleted an entry that had a ref. Your purported reason for deleting it, as reflected in your edit summary, was your assertion that -- despite the fact that a ref existed -- "notability is generally established by the existence of a Wikipedia article on the subject." That was a completely misleading statement, as to wp policy. WP policy specifically states that a ref may be sufficient. As to some twinkly language that some editor wrote -- that isn't policy. The policy is stated in the guidelines that I quoted to you. An appropriate ref is certainly sufficient. We should not mislead editors.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:36, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
- And I completely disagree with you. The policy you cited does not say that all you need is a reference. It says you need referencing sufficient to support notability for a bio article with some narrow exceptions, and the referencing has to connect the person to the subject of the article. That wasn't there, and as I said, there are plenty of Wikipedians that agree completely with me regarding the need for an article. (see WP:WTAF) The policy you cited clearly states that you must provide enough referencing to create an article, so why not encourage that? Again, I will say that we will apparently have to agree to disagree on this. I hold you no ill will and I hope you can respect my logic enough to give me the same. Cheers! Gtwfan52 (talk) 04:46, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
- I wrote "an appropriate ref is certainly sufficient". You completely disagree? Your edit summary failed completely to indicate that. It did not state at all that the ref was not the ref that was needed ... to the contrary, it suggested that generally refs would not suffice. That's completely wrong. And above -- you indicate that you mislead editors because you think it is for the good of the project to indicate what the guideline actually states. That is not appropriate. BTW -- if you check my edit history, you will see that I often delete non-notable entries from lists. That's not my problem. My problem is when it is done in a misleading manner.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:52, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
- And I completely disagree with you. The policy you cited does not say that all you need is a reference. It says you need referencing sufficient to support notability for a bio article with some narrow exceptions, and the referencing has to connect the person to the subject of the article. That wasn't there, and as I said, there are plenty of Wikipedians that agree completely with me regarding the need for an article. (see WP:WTAF) The policy you cited clearly states that you must provide enough referencing to create an article, so why not encourage that? Again, I will say that we will apparently have to agree to disagree on this. I hold you no ill will and I hope you can respect my logic enough to give me the same. Cheers! Gtwfan52 (talk) 04:46, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
- My problem is that you deleted material on the basis of an edit summary that incorrectly stated what the rule is. You deleted an entry that had a ref. Your purported reason for deleting it, as reflected in your edit summary, was your assertion that -- despite the fact that a ref existed -- "notability is generally established by the existence of a Wikipedia article on the subject." That was a completely misleading statement, as to wp policy. WP policy specifically states that a ref may be sufficient. As to some twinkly language that some editor wrote -- that isn't policy. The policy is stated in the guidelines that I quoted to you. An appropriate ref is certainly sufficient. We should not mislead editors.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:36, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
- The policy you quoted says exactly what I stated above. I don't see your problem. You have to have enough referencing to support an article viz. notability and your references have to connect the subject to the article containing the list. That was not there for the fella at hand. Additionally, there is a Twinkle warning that states "Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Your recent edit appears to have added the name of a non-notable entity. In general, a person or organization added to a list should have a pre-existing article to establish notability. If you wish to create such an article, please confirm that your subject is notable according to Wikipedia's notability guideline. Thank you." So, like I said, I'm going to have to agree to disagree with you. Happy editing! Gtwfan52 (talk) 04:25, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
- That's incorrect. (and -- if it were correct, I don't understand why that would have not been your first response, above). See wp:listpeople {"If a person in a list does not have an article in Wikipedia about them, a citation (or link to another article) must be provided to establish their membership in the list's group and to establish their notability on either BLP1E or BIO1E."}. As to you having made many edits -- kudos. I've made ten times as many. That's irrelevant. We shouldn't be making up rules that are not rules, and acting as though they are. That's simply not cricket.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:16, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
- That too is the generally accepted criteria for many, if not all, here at Wikipedia. Does it serve anyone to dredge up the exact policy WP:NLIST? Most school articles are edited primarily by SPA editors and telling them that they can add anyone they want if they can reference it is not really productive. Sorry if you disagree, but you will not sway me. I have edited thousands of school articles in my time here and it has never really served any useful purpose in any of them to encourage the adding of unlinked or red linked subjects. A military officer is not notable unless he did something notable. You don't inherit notability from who your commander was any more than you would from your father. Gtwfan52 (talk) 04:09, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
- That's not what I read your edit summary to state, as your reason for deleting the entry. Your edit summary gave as your reason for deletion: " notability is generally established by the existence of a Wikipedia article on the subject."--Epeefleche (talk) 04:02, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Poke :)
Can you take another quick look at American Canyon High School? I'm done, though I didn't delete them all, a nd I'd like a second opinion. Thanks. Revent (talk)
- sure. In a few. Gtwfan52 (talk) 04:01, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
- BTW, you might find [1] and especially [2] amusing. Revent (talk) 04:09, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
- It looks good. I have seen some pretty stupid vandalism on school articles, but those are pretty strange! happy editing! Gtwfan52 (talk) 04:12, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
- BTW, you might find [1] and especially [2] amusing. Revent (talk) 04:09, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
- sure. In a few. Gtwfan52 (talk) 04:01, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Howdy Gtwfan52. Thank you for your comments and help. I am still feeling my way around Wikipedia, and am probably making more mistakes than doing any good. I think I'm going to stop for the night, and will pick this up when I'm fresh in the morning. Goodnight. gagegsGagegs (talk) 05:38, 28 April 2013 (UTC)