User talk:Kharkiv07/Archives/2015/October

A message from Prolumbo

Thank you for your guidance regarding my mistake. I did not know how to move an article. Also, I realized that 'technique' was inappropriate. I have not done this before, and in future will use the Move tab. Again. Thanks for pointing that out for me. Prolumbo (talk) 13:07, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

@Prolumbo: No problem! Thanks for your contributions! Kharkiv07 (T) 13:08, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

A message from Dksats

Dear Kharkiv07 why are you not willing to create a page of Sooraj Pancholi his own. Is there any problem. Deepak Kumar Satapathy (talk) 14:18, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

@Dksats: See here, here, and here. Kharkiv07 (T) 14:35, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

More Training - from Some Gadget Geek

Hi, many thanks to you for marking my CVUA.

Would it be possible if I can continue posting my counter-vandalism activities on an individual basis (that is, one row added to the bottom of the CVUA table at a time) and re-evaluate me after each entry has been posted (i.e. endorse ROLLBACK when you think I've made sufficient edits to prove that I'm ready). That way I can get to tools like HUGGLE ASAP.

Bedankt! <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 02:29, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

@Some Gadget Geek: I'm happy to train you more, but I'd like you to first get Twinkle, it will help you a lot, I believe. I'd then like you to then skim over the relevant pages mentioned on your page, as well as your training, and post any questions you have here. After that, I'd like you to go out and fight vandalism, and I'll just do some random spot checks as we go along. Kharkiv07 (T) 02:33, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm actually using Twinkle already. Just want to know where to post further edits. All ten rows on my CVUA page are full, will you add as many as I need to prove that I am ready for rollback? <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 14:24, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

That was what I was saying, you just do your thing, and I'm just going to spot check your contributions. When I do that, I'll put a grading table on your page. Kharkiv07 (T) 14:46, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Article request

Hi Kharkiv07, I see that you can locate and send a wide variety of articles. I wonder if you might be able to help me with this one. Many thanks, Ericoides (talk) 17:08, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

@Ericoides: After looking through several databases, I can't seem to find it on what I have immediately available. However, I'm making a library run tomorrow and I'll send you an e-mail if I find anything. Sorry I couldn't be more helpful! Kharkiv07 (T) 18:04, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

No problem; thanks very much for looking. Ericoides (talk) 18:36, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Medical School of Japan

Hi, just letting you know that in your closure of the above AFD, you have put the result as merging the article into itself and tagged the article in the same manner. I think it was supposed to be History of Roman Catholicism in Japan. Would you like to fix it up? Regards, AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 01:26, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out! Kharkiv07 (T) 01:33, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

No problem. Sorry to bother you again, but I think the {{Afd-merge from}} template you put on Talk:Medical School of Japan is supposed to go on the destination article's talk page. At first I thought it was a problem in the format and tried to fix it myself. But after a few minutes I finally gave up and looked at the documentation at Template:Afd-merge from and figured out it was placed on the wrong page.

I am trying to learn this non-admin closure business too. They certainly don't make it simple! AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 02:29, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

@Athomeinkobe: Nobody closes AfDs by hand, that's why it's so complicated. Use User:Mr.Z-man/closeAFD2.js, it tags everything automatically and makes life eassier. Anyway, I'll take a look at that. Kharkiv07 (T) 03:39, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

A message from Datracy59

Hi Kharkiv07, I noticed my page on Arend't critique of human rights has been deleted (or the link on the main Arendt page simply doesn't redirect?). It wasn't clear to me why. Could you please explain or point to policies I'm violating? I added citations to ensure that the page didn't appear OR. Datracy59 (talk) 19:02, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Datracy59, I closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arendt on Human Rights as "'redirect to Hannah Arendt#Arendt's Critique of Human Rights". The arguments brought up by the people who said the article should be deleted and/or redirect were mainly WP:OR and WP:NOTESSAY, as well as the article containing much of the same information as Hannah Arendt's article. If you read up on the policies and still aren't clear why it was redirected feel free to leave me a message here. Happy editing! Kharkiv07 (T) 00:04, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Kharikiv07, I understand the reasons mentioned for deletion, it's just that they are unsubstantiated. Citations were added to to address WP:OR. The article contains almost no overlap with the main Arendt page. Anyone can see this by glancing at the article. I worry that this quality entry is being redirected without violating any policies. Datracy59 (talk) 20:40, 4 October 2015 (UTC)Datracy59

A message from Porphyry Jones

Hi Kharkiv07:

I saw that you deleted the page on Hannah Arendt's critique of human rights. I know that pages have to be deleted sometimes, but I saw in the discussion that some people were suggesting speedy deletion of that one because they thought it was original research. The person who made the page went in an inserted references to make clear that this was not the case, so I am wondering about the appropriateness of deletion in this particular case.

I happen to be familiar with the topic and I think it is an important one. Is there any way the entry could be restored? I could work on the entry to make it more appropriate, if need be.

Best,

Porphyry Jones (talk) 04:37, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Porphyry. You're right, this is a bit confusing! WP:OR and WP:NOTESSAY do not apply to speedy deletion; however, it still may be the result of a deletion discussions. Since the result of the article for deletion discussion was to redirect, perhaps you'd like to try to add some of that content into Hannah Arendt's article, and see where it goes from there! Happy editing! Kharkiv07 (T) 13:35, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

My reply to two editors

@Porphyry Jones and Datracy59: You two have both been raising similar issues on my talk page, so allow me to respond to you here. If I were you two, I'd try to collaborate on adding the information into Arendt's main article, and, once the suitability of that is proven, try to consider merging it back out into it's own article. I'd be glad to help if I can. Kharkiv07 (T) 14:40, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

A message from Porphyry Jones

Thanks a lot for your patient reply, Kharkiv07, and for the cookies :)

I agree that adding the material to the main Hannah Arendt page is one way to go. However, as you know, one of the beauties of Wikipedia is that it allows secondary pages that can go into much more depth on a topic, which I feel is warranted here. It's not just that the topic, as I say, is an important one. Giving a page to this topic on its own allows for much more depth and information.

I know someone in the deletion discussion page said the material was already covered in the main Hannah Arendt page, but that actually was not the case. For example there was a discussion of a book that had been written in 2011 responding to Arendt's argument, which appeared in 1951. Info like that is valuable because it shows the ongoing influence of Arendt's argument into the present, among other reasons. But I don't think it would fit elegantly into the main Arendt page, which would get imbalanced and disorganized if I tried to include critical responses to Arendt's argument there.

I think part of the problem is that the critique of human rights page originally looked like original research. That is why it was marked for deletion. But it is not OR and is not a personal essay. Someone reading the discussion page after the fact, without knowing the necessary references had been added, might continue to think OR and ESSAY policies applied, when in fact they did not.

We seem to be in a slightly unusual situation, where Wikipedians acting in good faith inadvertently called for a page to be deleted for violating policies it did not in fact violate. I therefore would like to propose an alternative solution. Instead of trying to squeeze all the info to the main Arendt page, I propose again adding a page on Arendt's Critique of Human Rights, this time with all the necessary references clearly present from the beginning. Could we try that and, to use your phrase, see what happens? It would be a shame to lose a good page due to a bit of confusion. Porphyry Jones (talk) 14:45, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

A message from 2602:306:CF35:C8F0:A5B8:D7C4:B615:FAFF

My changes constitute the truth of what happened that year and the poll voters and media deserve to be called out for their corruption and wrong doing of a far superior football team that was shafted in the polls in 1983. The Miami football team players were beauty queen posers in 1983 compared to the Auburn Tigers who were the real National Champions in 1983. If posting the truth is vandalism I suppose I'm guilty as charged! War Eagle and good day. 2602:306:CF35:C8F0:A5B8:D7C4:B615:FAFF (talk) 00:24, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Sounds like a confession :) Kharkiv07 (T) 00:39, 15 October 2015 (UTC)