|
I stayed up much too late, last night, typing at my keyboard, in order to create San Marcos Seven for this project. So I went to bed, and returned today in order to add the notes onto the Talk page. And someone's already nominated the article for speedy deletion. The rationale is inappropriate. The article shouldn't be deleted, but could be expanded.
I actually laughed out loud when I read: "I did a google search and the "san marcos seven" does not appear in a google search." Really? You're surprised? A common word, a common name, and a number?
The editor himself discloses that he's employed by a pharmaceutical manufacturer. As if freely revealing the information removes the conflict of interest, which is really less important than the fact that his specialty is editing articles about drugs. The San Marcos Seven are people. And cannabis is an herbal supplement, a plant.
-- The Hammer of Thor (talk) 01:11, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
- I removed the speedy deletion tag and wrote in my summary for disagreeing editors to start an AfD discussion if they feel so inclined. ---Another Believer (Talk) 01:17, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you. -- The Hammer of Thor (talk) 01:23, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
- I strongly recommend including more sourcing, but in the meantime I'm marking this section as resolved. ---Another Believer (Talk) 01:54, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
- If this project starts behaving like a gang and "defending its turf", the community will disband it via an MfD. This has happened in the past. Please be aware of that and be careful not to "defend" edits or articles that do not comply with policies and guidelines. Jytdog (talk) 03:25, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
This project is beginning to take off. @Brianhe: found a 2001 article following up on two members of the San Marcos Seven in the Dallas Observer that is a great contribution in itself, and helps a little bit with the sourcing.
-- The Hammer of Thor (talk) 04:16, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for the mention. It helps to narrow a web search to use the terms San Marcos, Texas, marijuana, 1991. - Brianhe (talk) 04:21, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
- There are quotations in that page, sourced to nothing. Encyclopedia articles generally don't have quotations, and they sure as hell don't have unsourced quotations. The quotations are either hoax quotes, plagiarized, or obtained by the editor who added them. None of those are acceptable.
- The page should be draft space until it is free to content violations.
- User:The Hammer of Thor would you move it to draft space? If you don't know how, I will do it. Jytdog (talk) 05:07, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
- I find myself in agreement with Jytdog on this. Unless the missing cites can be added quite quickly, userification or moving to draft space for repair would be sound. - Brianhe (talk) 05:51, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
- Sounds good. I removed the speedy tag b/c I thought the article was under construction and could be nominated at AfD if notability was a concern. ---Another Believer (Talk) 06:02, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
- I made a few edits and moved the page to Draft:San Marcos Seven. @The Hammer of Thor: Feel free to improve the article here until it's ready to live in the main space. ---Another Believer (Talk) 06:20, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
@Brianhe: Thanks again. You're right about narrowing the search results. I've tried many word combinations over the years. San Marcos Seven, Hays County got me the NYT story. Now I'm having some success with San Marcos, marijuana, [defendant's name]. I think some of the archived newspaper pages I'm finding, now, hadn't been cataloged until recently. (Still haven't located The Austin Chronicle article, though.) Also, thank you for the careful editing you've done to the article. You and Another Believer have improved it a great deal. Pleaded vs. pled was the fault of my spell-checker: Thanks for catching that.
 Done @Another Believer: Thank you for your edits. You and Brianhe have helped greatly. And I appreciate it. I think Jytdog is a bit overzealous. Discussion is fine, skipping discussion to speedily delete isn't. And I think some of the negative stuff is what turns away potential WP contributors (in frustration) and that, in turn, leads to a feeling that WP can't be trusted. I've found links to several more sources, including some new and some corrected information, and I'll be making the updates over the next few days. There's no hurry, I've waited for this article for years. But at some point San Marcos Seven should be moved to the main space, even if it's not perfect. Because WP is a work in progress that's never really finished. -- The Hammer of Thor (talk) 07:14, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
@Jytdog: I think you might be a good editor. But I also think you could be a much better editor if you behaved politely. Making threats and using foul language are both inappropriate here. And so is name-calling. It's not ok to selectively quote WP rules to justify your behavior. There are many rules. That leads to fighting. I appreciate the positive that has resulted from your criticisms. But please be patient with contributors in the real world, who might have better things to do than WP all the time and are volunteering their help.
-- The Hammer of Thor (talk) 00:55, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
- @The Hammer of Thor: thanks for your response. Please assume good faith on the part of all of us -- I have known everyone who has contributed here for some time and assure you that they have the good of the greater community in mind. Also keep in mind that on Wikipedia, we all potentially speak different Varieties of English, use different degrees of formality in our talkpage comments, use devices (e.g. keyboard-less mobiles) not well suited to lengthy replies, and have real-world duties calling. A comment that may seen harsh or terse to you may not have been meant that way. And finally, all of us are volunteers and do this for "fun". - Brianhe (talk) 03:42, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks again, Brianhe. I suppose I should've said "Let's all be kind to each other." -- The Hammer of Thor (talk) 04:00, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
- Well said, Brianhe! ---Another Believer (Talk) 04:41, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
- Hi folks! Everything's coming along nicely with Draft:San Marcos Seven. But wow I can't catch a break without Jytdog deleting things I've done. Arbitrarily, without investigation. Slow down, J. Please see Draft talk:San Marcos Seven. -- The Hammer of Thor (talk) 19:42, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
- Edit competently and there will be no need for anyone to revert you. No one will support edits that violate policy. Jytdog (talk) 01:44, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
- Ditto. -- The Hammer of Thor (talk) 04:07, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Moving San Marcos Seven to main space
I think that San Marcos Seven is ready to be moved back to the main space, at any time. (See Draft:San Marcos Seven, and Draft talk:San Marcos Seven.) -- The Hammer of Thor (talk) 19:04, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
- The draft still has "citation needed" tags. I'd recommend addressing these before considering a move to the main space. ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:54, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
- still full of unsourced content and NPOV violations. Jytdog (talk) 20:50, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
That's crazy talk. There are lots of articles on WP that have "citation needed" tags. A solid majority of the information is well-sourced. And the remainder, though awaiting citations, is reliable data. -- The Hammer of Thor (talk) 02:31, 6 February 2017 (UTC) (Striking. Was deleted twice, here and here, after people responded. Jytdog (talk) 20:05, 6 February 2017 (UTC))
- @The Hammer of Thor: Sure, there are other articles with "citation needed" tags, but that's not a reason to ignore requests here to address the tags in your draft article before moving to the main space. ---Another Believer (Talk) 02:53, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
- You cannot move it to mainspace containing WP:BLP violations as it does now. Jytdog (talk) 02:55, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
@The Hammer of Thor: If by this edit, you mean to say you're no longer interested in supporting the upcoming 420 collaboration, then I'm sorry you feel this way. I know it can be frustrating facing pushback when you're working to improve Wikipedia, but I hope you'll recognize that the requests made by others to make the draft more accurate and verifiable also demonstrates their preference for a quality encyclopedia. ---Another Believer (Talk) 05:57, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
- I'm just stepping back. I don't want to be alone, in the middle of a fight. Good luck everyone! Have a blessed 4/20. -- The Hammer of Thor (talk) 15:03, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
- You, too. I hope you'll still consider creating and improving other Wikipedia articles in the future. ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:23, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
|
