User talk:Pkapsales

Any reason you haven't responded to my inquiry? Quite frankly, don't volunteer for the job if you are not able to competently perform it.

Deleted article

I see you have filed arbitration on an issue regarding a deleted article and supposed Administrator abuse. I would just like to talk to you about how things work on Wikipedia. I'll speak of arbitration a bit later.

The article Atlantic Baseball Confederation (and its related articles on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Atlantic Baseball Confederation) were deleted on the basis that they were not notable, which means that the subject must have demonstrated notability across multiple, verifiable, reliable sources, something the article apparently did not have. As User:Hersfold said on the article for deletion page, "notability is not inherited", so the point that some of the players signed professional contracts does not establish notability.

Regarding arbitration, that is the last step in dispute resolution, when all other steps are exhausted. Arbitration is not the Wikipedia Complaints Department.

If you have any further questions, feel free to ask. x42bn6 Talk Mess 23:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding response from involved admin

see User:Pkapsales. I think the response you seem not to have seen is there. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 23:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

in addition...

Welcome!

Hello, Pkapsales, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome!

I second Rocksanddirt's comment, and add that, if you feel that the articles should not have been deleted for some reason, or - more likely - if you feel that you have additional sources or information that could establish the notability of these Basketball leagues, and wish to propose recreating the articles with those additional sources, then you will want to go to Deletion Review. There is a process for this, and it takes place well before an arbitration committee case is warranted. Please feel free to direct any questions you may have about this process to my talk page. Thank you. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 15:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Atlantic Baseball Confederation and your request for artbitration

As you've likely noticed, your request for arbitration is likely to be rejected. If you believe that an article was wrongfully deleted, you should file a complaint here. I have to warn you, though, that from what I can see, the deletion was very much in keeping with Wikipedia's policies. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:03, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Atlantic Baseball Confederation: My response to comments

Sorry to tell you that it is quite obvious the "volunteers" at Wiki would have been enthusiastic party members in the USSR and Nazis in Germany if they were born in a different time and place. The abuse of authority is quite obvious and quite frankly, the pathetic user interface of your site discourages anyone not familiar with the process or HTML since it is not worth the effort to get involved with any disagreements.

I still don't see the response from the editor. Maybe it is there, but I can't find it.

Regarding your idiotic statements about "The article Atlantic Baseball Confederation (and its related articles on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Atlantic Baseball Confederation) were deleted on the basis that they were not notable, which means that the subject must have demonstrated notability across multiple, verifiable, reliable sources, something the article apparently did not have."

Who determines notability? Someone completely ignorant of the subject (as was the case)? Consistency does not exist regarding submissions. Some summer leagues had submissions similar or with less signficant information that I submitted, yet they were not deleted. If the editor took a minute and Googled the summer league, they would have found numerous links to check "notability." At least 30 published articles in the hard print media (most still available online) exist about the League. Can you name one summer league with the same coverage? Yet they have Wiki pages and the editor deleted my submission.

What is multiple reliable and verifiable sources? There is nothing in this whole encyclopedia that meets that criteria. All the editors do is check another online source that may be right or wrong. Original sources are never checked. You would need access to the numerous databases in an academic library to accomplish that (and that would only be half the battle since most sources are not even in the databases but still in hard copy).

The summer collegiate league in question also played the Russian National Team this past summer in their 25th anniversary tour of the USA. This made the CBS Early Show plus several news broadcasts. Is that notable?

I can understand why every professor in accredited colleges and universities forbids the use of Wiki. The information is controlled by poorly educated volunteers who abuse their power and bias the content. Anyone who has a career or a life cannot spend time fooling around with this site nor the group think and "closed society" that exists. ppk (talk) 06:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding policy abuse: The person who deleted the article followed what seemed to be consensus on the deletion notice. There's not much room for policy abuse here.
Regarding getting your way round: It's not user-friendly for newcomers, I agree, and should really be worked upon.
Who determines notability: It is expected those with a first-hand knowledge of the subject would be more capable of determining its notability, but Wikipedia:Notability is a guideline (not a policy) which is a useful set of notes that determines whether or not the article might or might not be encyclopedic. Not having seen the article itself, I don't know whether it is or not, but the consensus was that it was not notable enough. If you have any references to show, please show them, because I cannot find anything (only passing mentions at Google News's archive). And there's also the note that if this was deleted, why does something else stay? has some notes regarding it - perhaps those leagues are deletion-worthy too, perhaps not. The guideline itself was written by many Wikipedians.
What is multiple reliable and verifiable sources: Alain Prost? If you think some sources are difficult to obtain, perhaps they are not verifiable. However, a lot of sources on Alain Prost seem easy to obtain if I go the library.
Regarding the Russian National Team match: I think so - do you have any links or references to show this? I seldom deal with notability issues (I usually clean up articles) so someone else with more experience will be in a better position to give you a definite answer.
And I think professors prohibit Wikipedia being used as a primary source for verification. For good reason - an encyclopedia (not just Wikipedia) is for the start of researching, but should never be used as an end point and should never be cited without good reason.

I'll see if I can get some more comments regarding this. If you have any references, please show them here because I cannot find any, at least not obvious ones. With links or titles to look for, perhaps I can help you formulate an argument for deletion review to get the article undeleted. x42bn6 Talk Mess 16:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From Wikipedia:Verifiability: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that readers should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed."

Notability has absolutely nothing to do with personal knowledge of the editors. It is determined by verifiable references to reliable sources. Those sources may occasionally be incorrect, in which case other reliable sources will usually provide the correct information. It is not the job of editors to determine the truth of reliable sources. If there is a conflict then Wikipedia will simply summarize what is reported by sources on both sides.

There is one and only one way to defend against a proposed deletion: Provide references to reliable sources. Without sources an article cannot demonstrate notability.

If there are other articles - and there certainly are - without reliable sources then those articles can be tagged and eventually deleted. Sbowers3 (talk) 18:12, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Atlantic Baseball Confederation: Wikipedia LOSERS AKA Wiki-Loser

After one attempt to add some value to a Wikipedia subject area of very minimal significance I have learned a quite bit about the problems of the Wiki concept. As previously stated, I accurately conclude it is run by a closed society of individuals of questionable competence, education, and intelligence. The first requirement you must have to be an editor or major contributor is that you must have a lot of time on your hands. That means you don't have a life nor partake in any meaninful position which requires your focus for professional or economic success. To put it bluntly, you must be a loser.

You maintain the loser organization by ensuring the site is so difficult to navigate regarding contributions, rules, edits, appeals, etc, etc, etc, that anyone with a life can't bother with it.

Again, I repeat, the contribution I provided on the ABCCL was a very simplistic description of the league and most recent (2007) results. It was only two paragraphs. A simple "google" search would have substantiated the information, and as a member of the Executive Board of the league, it was within my authority to provide the information. IF YOU DO NOT WANT such contributions, leave the topic out of Wiki. What good is a topic, if there is not a single word of information about the topic? And of course, you allow some subject to have explanations, yet deny others. A contradictory application of the rules you say you apply.

Do these links reflect multiple reliable and verifiable sources? (note: numerous others could be provided, but most print media web archives require paid subscriptions for access). I don't know, but I can say they provide more likelihood that the information is reliable and verifiable than 99% of the information you post on Wiki-LOSER.

www.abccl.com

http://www.usrccne.org/news2.phtml?m=330

http://www.leaguelineup.com/links.asp?cmenuid=10&url=russianbaseball&sid=409916799

2007 Season

http://independent.gmnews.com/news/2007/0613/Sports/082.html

http://independent.gmnews.com/news/2007/0711/Sports/064.html

http://independent.gmnews.com/news/2007/0718/Sports/058.html

http://independent.gmnews.com/news/2007/0725/Sports/058.html

http://independent.gmnews.com/news/2007/0801/Sports/075.html

http://independent.gmnews.com/news/2007/0808/Sports/067.html

http://independent.gmnews.com/news/2007/0815/Sports/075.html

2006 Season