This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Tony Sidaway (talk | contribs) at 02:45, 17 January 2011 (→"since when did essays need references": some merit to your proposal to let them squabble over a mere essay). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 02:45, 17 January 2011 by Tony Sidaway (talk | contribs) (→"since when did essays need references": some merit to your proposal to let them squabble over a mere essay)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)See my archives here.
Oreste Scalzone
I could work on that. Would you mind userfying it? Thanks! --Cyclopia 19:48, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
- - I find google cashe useful in such situations cashe here - Off2riorob (talk) 19:58, 11
January 2011 (UTC)
Done User:Cyclopia/Oreste Scalzone. The trust is that it will not be left in userspace without references for long, but I think that probably goes without saying.--Scott Mac 20:00, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
- Of course. Thank you. --Cyclopia 20:09, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
- some wiki news and italian wiki article for inspiration. Off2riorob (talk) 20:15, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
- My problem with the article was simply it was unreferenced and negative - you've nothing to prove to me.--Scott Mac 20:29, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
- (If you're talking to me and not to Off2riorob) I know I've nothing to prove to you. I just wanted to defuse and collaborate with what I see as a worthwile effort in this case. --Cyclopia 21:58, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
- Article now referenced; could you check? --Cyclopia 12:54, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- Looks fine, but you don't need my authority to move it back. My concern was unreferenced negative and you've remedied that.--Scott Mac 15:10, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- Given your sensitivity to BLP issues and especially reversal of your BLP-driven admin action, I just wanted to be sure. Thanks. --Cyclopia 15:27, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you for the consideration.--Scott Mac 15:31, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- Given your sensitivity to BLP issues and especially reversal of your BLP-driven admin action, I just wanted to be sure. Thanks. --Cyclopia 15:27, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- Looks fine, but you don't need my authority to move it back. My concern was unreferenced negative and you've remedied that.--Scott Mac 15:10, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- Article now referenced; could you check? --Cyclopia 12:54, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- (If you're talking to me and not to Off2riorob) I know I've nothing to prove to you. I just wanted to defuse and collaborate with what I see as a worthwile effort in this case. --Cyclopia 21:58, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
- My problem with the article was simply it was unreferenced and negative - you've nothing to prove to me.--Scott Mac 20:29, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
- some wiki news and italian wiki article for inspiration. Off2riorob (talk) 20:15, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
I've seen you've deleted Franco Piperno as well (expected that): same thing, please? Thanks. Also, just since we're here: what if I directly move a page like that in my mainspace, in the future, to work on (fast)? Is it proper? --Cyclopia 20:18, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- Unreferenced material negative should not be in userspace at all - I'm actually fairly liberal in undeleting and userfying if the person requesting is clued enough, and will act without delay, however a lot of admins will refuse and simply offer to e-mail you the content, so that you can replace it with references. The best thing to do with an article like that is either a) immediately source it or b) immediately copy the content into an off-wiki place (word processor) and then mark the article {{db-attack}} for immediate deletion. Then, at your leisure, you can recreate the article (inserting only sourced material). It would be rather good (and I mean this genuinely) if even inclusionists like you were able to help with the enforcement of the immediate removal of unsourced negative material once spotted, which can be later replaced (it shouldn't need a BLP warrior like me to see that this is a sensible act, and clearly policy). Oh, there is one other option for a non-admin: c) stub the thing down to the non-negative bit, even if that means the article reads "John Smith is a Italian politician" or even "is a person". Basically anything is temporarily better than leaving an unsourced negative bio.--Scott Mac 20:29, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
"since when did essays need references"
See WP:Activist where some editors have repeatedly added "citation needed" and other odd edits. See also that essay's talk page. I noted your edit summary "since when did essays need references" and deemed it an interesting issue. Thanks. Collect (talk) 15:09, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- It depends on the essay. If the essay is basically nothing more that "someone's opinion" then it doesn't need citations. If you don't agree with it, simply write on the talk page "I think is bullshit and full of factual errors". Fine. If the essay is a collaborative work (and it looks like that is) then the people collaborating may have different views on some factual points. Then is is quite reasonable for an editor to say "what's the evidence for this claim?" and one way of answering that would be to cite the evidence. Perhaps "citation needed" isn't quite the right tag "disputed" might be or "challenged assertion". Citations are not requited for opinion pieces - but they may be a good way of convincing people of the accuracy of something. --Scott Mac 15:16, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- Um did you look at the edits? The "collaboration" on the article and talk page is not "collaboration" in any sense of the word I can find :). BTW, the opponents to the essay already had an AfD on it. When it looked like it was being made neutral, then the pushers jumped in calling it "poop." And adding as much "poop" as possible :). Collect (talk) 15:38, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- I've honestly not been following it.--Scott Mac 15:39, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- very latest edit. Enjoy. May need a large schmear to make such edits palatable. Collect (talk) 15:43, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- I took a look and heavens, it's the Climate Change shitstorm-by-proxy again. Well, at least they're off fighting over a mere essay, which I can safely ignore. Whatever keeps them away from actual articles is fine by me.--Scott Mac 16:05, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- very latest edit. Enjoy. May need a large schmear to make such edits palatable. Collect (talk) 15:43, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- I've honestly not been following it.--Scott Mac 15:39, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- Um did you look at the edits? The "collaboration" on the article and talk page is not "collaboration" in any sense of the word I can find :). BTW, the opponents to the essay already had an AfD on it. When it looked like it was being made neutral, then the pushers jumped in calling it "poop." And adding as much "poop" as possible :). Collect (talk) 15:38, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
I'd be inclined to have those involved who are already banned from the topic blocked for a fairly blatant continuation of their battleground editing. There's some merit to your proposal to let them squabble over a mere essay, though. --TS 02:45, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
An ANI thread
Scott, a month or two ago, I believe you started a thread on ANI (or maybe AN) relating to overly aggressive responses to editors with corporate or institutional usernames. I would like to refer someone to that thread, but can't seem to quickly find it. Do you happen to know where it is archived? Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:43, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
- This may be the thread ?--Scott Mac 19:52, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, that's exactly it. Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:03, 14 January 2011 (UTC)