Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:48, 9 July 2013

This is Tazerdadog's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15Auto-archiving period: 31 days

This user is in school. This user is taking a wikibreak and may be away or inactive for varying periods of time. Although they may occasionally be able to do some editing, messages left for them may not be replied to for a while. They will be back on Misplaced Pages when school is over.

ANI for Geo Swan

I have responded to your question at the Geo Swan ANI discussion -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fram (talk • contribs) 03:15, 2012 August 30‎

Thanks much

Thank you for your participation at WP:TFAR for 1987 (What the Fuck Is Going On?).

Regardless of the outcome, I think it's a good thing to have a discussion about these sorts of issues.

I hope you're doing well, — Cirt (talk) 23:56, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

You are invited for discussion

Hello,

As one of the participants in the original discussion, you are invited to participate in the follow-up discussion to a Mass removal of indefinite rangeblocks under controlled conditions. Your views will be appreciated.

Cheers, TheOriginalSoni (talk) 06:44, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Echo

Hello,

By some chance, I managed to see your failed ping towards me, and so I wanted to explain how the echo pings work to you. If you add a link to my userpage, the ping will only work if you also include a full signature of ~~~~ with it . Or else it does not ping me. So when you fixed the link to my user page, you should also have altered the signature so Echo would identify it.

Hope it helps! Cheers, TheOriginalSoni (talk) 22:07, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Weird. I will keep that in mind in future. I'm going to go experiment with that a little. Tazerdadog (talk) 22:10, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Be sure to have a volunteer or a sock account to help you around, as you can't leave an Echo ping to yourself.

I remember you have been assisting GoP with his adoption school, right? TheOriginalSoni (talk) 22:30, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I was going to log out and play around in sandboxes as an IP. I am helping phightins with adoption, yes. Tazerdadog (talk) 22:32, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

And I can't get it to ping me at all... fun. Tazerdadog (talk) 22:38, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Just as I said. Try getting someone to volunteer :)

I see. Planning your own adoption school too? TheOriginalSoni (talk) 22:51, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm happy under phightins for now. If I get the itch, I'll probably just write more lessons for him. I'm thinking about something like making phightin's school a "core curriculum", and adding advanced classes in vandal fighting/content contribution/maintainence and backlogs etc. If you need help getting your school of the ground, feel free to ping me here, however. Tazerdadog (talk) 02:48, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Ok :)

Not really. I've already got my school started, just need to formalise it now. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 10:44, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Lighting a Billion Lives ( LaBL)

Excuse me, but what makes you think you have any right whatsoever to remove my review of the above article and replace it with your own? That article is nowhere close to meeting WP:CORP, which is the standard for notability that applies here. It shows one source that may as a stretch be considered independent reliable sourcing, that being this. Even that is suspect , as the article is credited to someone not a staff reporter but a communications consultant.. That is a fancy title for a PR hack. The others are primary academic papers (only reviewed academic papers published in journals are acceptable for showing notability) or not independent of the subject.

Even if your review had been accurate, that still does not give you the right to supersede your review in place of mine. Cannot tell you how many different ways of wrong that is. I would like an explanation for your actions, please. Gtwfan52 (talk) 07:00, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Gtwfan52,

From what it looks like, it appears to be a botched up edit conflict, which was seemingly caused by both of you simultaneously using the AfC script to decline it. I suggest asking someone at AfC to check if the script can tend to do that. (I say this on noting that there was clean up done by Tazer just 5 minutes before, and his decline was done using the AFC helper script, not manually)

I hope both of you will clear your confusion and continue working actively :)

Cheers,

TheOriginalSoni (talk) 08:11, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Soni, but if I wanted your explanation for it, I would have asked you on your talk page. I am asking this fella and I would like to hear from him what happened, not your justification of it. Gtwfan52 (talk) 08:25, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

• What I suggested was a plausible explanation based on my limited knowledge of how the script works. Since the edit is tagged as done by the AFC Script, it can not be done deliberately. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 08:38, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Soni's explanation for how the conflict occurred seems plausible to me. However, I still do not see where you see notability in this article. I also did several different web searches and found nothing more on the subject. What do you base your statement "While I think your sources establish notability,..." upon? Really there is no thinking involved. Either they do or they don't, and in this case, they don't.

There has been a number of articles in the past few months that have passed AfC and then almost immediately, failed AfD. There have even been a couple that passed AfC and were CSD'd. That should never happen. If you don't have a firm grip on WP:N, WP:GNG, and the myriad of substandards like WP:CORP, WP:NMUSIC, etc (and stating in a review that you think sources establish notability indicates that you don't), you should probably spend more time at AfD to really learn what constitutes notability before doing any more AfC. Running an editor through the hurdles of AfC is somewhat discouraging, I agree. AfC is to some greater or lesser extent a flawed system. But making an editor do what he needs to do to create an article, while he is in an environment where having your work reviewed is expected, is much less discouraging than telling him his article is fine only to turn around and have it deleted. Please understand that retaining new editors is a high priority here at Misplaced Pages. Giving false hope is not conducive to that. Review articles only if you are familiar with the subset of notability that applies to that type article. If you are not sure, just leave them some comments and don't accept or decline. Yes the article does have NPOV issues. That was a good point to make to the author. However, it has fatal notability issues at this time. As you rightly said in your review, notability is the biggie.

I have dropped a note at the AfC talk page about the apparent bug in the helper script that allowed this to happen. Please don't take this conversation as any kind of condemnation, but instead as a fellow editor trying to help you. Spending time at AfD is very educational. You see in short form how consensus gets formed and you learn a whole lot about notability. Not to mention that observing some of the crazy drama there is sometimes entertaining. Happy editing! BTW, were you an adoptee of GP's? Gtwfan52 (talk) 10:18, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Hey, sorry I seem to be a little late to the party. First, the easy stuff. It appears our edits were within a minute of each other, and I had had the page up looking at it for several minutes, as I was trying to decide whether I could fix it. I should have use the review in progress template however. I was an adoptee of GP's, and I am helping him run his course. Looking back at the article, I really didn't give the sourcing the attention they deserved, as I knew that it wasn't going to pass WP:NPOV, and that I couldn't fix it. It does seem, however that if I misjudged an article that badly, then a refresher is in order. Right after I finish writing this I am going to go reread all of the major notability guidelines. I was just trying to help out with the backlog. I am also likely to help out on AfD. Sorry for all of the confusion, and happy editing. Tazerdadog (talk) 19:14, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Late nights, short temper. My bad. In any case, I am glad you listened even tho I could have been much more politic in my writing. The best school for notability is by far AfD, because nothing else really matters there. And some of the most experienced editors are there frequently. My adoptor, who unfortunately is not very active anymore due to his health, insisted on 10 well thought out !votes at AfD and also made me comment at at least two different noticeboards. Of course, I had told him up front that I thought the best use of my time on Misplaced Pages would be as a mop carrier. Been having some heavy r/L problems lately; when I get those resolved I'll probably attempt an RfA. GP and Buster have said they would co-nominate me. Gtwfan52 (talk) 19:44, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I think i will spend some time prowling around AfD, and come back to AfC about when the backlog drive ends to ensure that that backlog stays down. Thanks for the advice, and good luck with the RfA. Tazerdadog (talk) 20:17, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Exit

Dear Tazerdog

Many thanks for your help in the creation of the new article: http://en.wikipedia.org/Exit_%28Right-to-Die_Organization%29

My concern is over an edit you made to change the title, so I thought I would get back to you rather than just try to change it back, so I can fully understand your reasons and - as a newbie contributor - not cause problems.

The edit you made that I have a problem with is the change of the title from "Exit" to "Exit (Right-to-Die Organization). This is a problem for a number of reasons.

1.Most articles about a specific subject or organization simply have the title, not an explanatory phrase in brackets. The name of the organization is "Exit" plain and simple - a name by which it is recognized internationally in books and magazines (references available). Although the word can apply to other groups or things, this is covered, I feel, in the Wiki disambiguation page.I would much prefer if you could change it back simply to "Exit." Kind regards, and many thanks for your assistance

Hey! First of all, I feel obligated to ask you whether you are in any way connected with this organization. If so, you need to read wikipedia's policy on conflict of interest. Second, this organization is clearly not the primary topic for the term "Exit". Therefore, some in-title disambiguation is necessary. Whether my choice is optimal or not is a debatable manner. Third, wikipedia attempts to describe all topics in a neutral manner. It therefore does not matter whether the organization likes the term right to die or not, it only matters whether that is the best and most neutral descriptor. I feel that right to die organization is an appropriate descriptor. If you would like to initiate a community discussion on the title, then the correct way to do so is to start a requested move discussion on the talk page of the article. If Exit had a suffix such as Inc., LLC, etc. I would seriously consider a move to that title. Cheers! Tazerdadog (talk) 19:16, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit: Thank you for the points you and another wiki editor have made on disambiguation. I think I understand the position rather better now and withdraw the request. Getting this page up has been harder than I expected, but learning more about Misplaced Pages has been a fascinating and valuable experience. I am most grateful for your kind help and patience in view of my beginner's concerns! Cheers! ps a further apology - in editing this section for brevity I deleted both the extensive points I made originally (since you had answered them) including your reply, but realise now after checking the talkpages etiquette that this could be seen as impolite - unintended. Parzivalamfortas (talk) 02:19, 9 July 2013 (UTC)ParzivalamfortasParzivalamfortas (talk) 02:19, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, sometimes we can get a little touchy around here about refactoring comments. I'm not a stickler about it, but many here are. Glad I could help, and I'm glad you're enjoying wikipedia. Tazerdadog (talk) 02:48, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Question For Tazerdadog

Hello Tazerdadog, Thanks for taking the time to review my submitted article: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Tim_Kelly. As it was my first attempt at a wiki, I rally appreciate your input and I will take your comments into my next edit/post. I understand how you felt that the topic was not too notable, but I have seen many other articles that seem way less notable then my topic (i.e. Oakland Aviation Museum, which has 2 sentences of content, nothing really special about it and is far less notable then other museums in the Bay Area). What makes an article like that OK for publishing? I also wanted to ask you your thoughts about the overall formatting of the article. Did I provide good sources and links in your eyes? Any suggestions in that area? It would be greatly appreciated!

Thanks, PeterVeestword 00:04, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Hey! It's good to see that you are still here trying to make a difference. First, the easy and fun stuff. The formatting is quite good. The issue does not lie there at all. Unfortunately, this article is about a non-notable subject. In order to be included in the encyclopedia, an article must be about a notable subject. Notability is judged against a set of criteria, the most general and important of these being the general notability guideline. This requires significant coverage in secondary sources independent of the subject. However, all of your sources primarily address the statue. A statue is not enough to make you notable. More sourcing would help, but I don't think they exist. I know it's hard to have an article rejected, but those are the policies. I would recommend reading the link above, as well as the notability policy, and The policy on people who are known for only one event. After that, if you still think the article is notable, go for it, but unless you can produce better sources, the result is likely to stay the same.

Regarding your example on the Oakland Aviation Museum, this argument is addressed in the essay WP:OCE. However, I will be the first to agree that that article is in a sorry state.

I hope this helps.

Tazerdadog (talk) 01:08, 9 July 2013 (UTC)