Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18

This page has archives. Sections may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Greetings,

I didn't notice the replies to my questions, until after the {{afd}} closed. You wrote: "The nominator can only do so much." Of course. But, in my experience, many nominators nominate articles for deletion, based on concerns about the current state of the article -- not based on whether the topic merits coverage.

Some of these nominators assert articles are on non-notable topics, without appearing to have conducted any search on the topic themselves. I have found other nominators have conducted a search, have found some sources, but chosen not to be candid about the existence of references, for reasons of their own.

When a nominator has chosen not to conduct a search for references for an article, prior to nominating it for deletion, because they think those kinds of searches are a waste of their time, aren't they very selfishly putting a much higher value on their own time than the value they put on the good faith effort of those who participate in the discussion they initiated? When they claim a topic is "not-notable", without having conducted a search for references, and that topic actually has sources, they have wasted the time of everyone who weighs in on the discussion.

Of course the person who started the article has a greater responsibility than the nominator in researching the article. You and I agree they have the main responsibility. They should make a greater time commitment, because they have to write up those references.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 21:04, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree that what you are talking about is indeed a problem, when I said that the nominator can only do so much, the fact is that many times a nominator will come across an article with a weakly asserted notability and no third-party references. That person will google the title of the article and come up emptyhanded, sometimes not knowing that he has done his search for sources under a misspelled title. In such cases, the nominator had no way of knowing the actual spelling that would have given the right sources. Or another example, the nominator didn't know where to look. And as a result, the article ends up being nominated for deletion, the creator, or someone else familiar with the topic, comes up with sources, and the article survives either as keep or as no consensus.

I'll tell you my own view on this matter, having often changed my votes in AfD's after sources came up: Every person who votes in an AfD has a responsibility to do a summary research (and there are ways in Google to eliminate some false positives) and to take into account the previous comments, not just the article itself. For cases where one sees no reason to even bother with a Google search, there is speedy deletion. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 22:32, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We agree that each participant in the discussion should do summary research. I confess I am not always influenced by the previous participants disucssions -- because there are discussions where I disagree with all the other participants. Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 00:11, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just following the guidelines! "If the article has been translated, but needs attention from someone approaching dual fluency in both languages: 1. Use the notice {{cleanup-translation}}... 2. Add a mention to the translation cleanup section on this page." The first paragraph is gibberish. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 15:15, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is, it seems there never was a foreign-language version from which a cleanup can be done. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 15:24, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point. Thanks --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 15:32, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have put a notice on the hinduism notice board so that hopefully we can get some references. -- Q Chris (talk) 17:53, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for catching the vandalism on my userpage! -FaerieInGrey (talk) 17:57, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm assuming that revert of my changes to the Miller v Texas section was merely collateral damage in your edit war with 141.154.110.173. (I had let my login expire before I saved the changes, so my changes came in as 67.174.251.157) If you have any concerns regarding my changes, please let me know on the Second Amendment talk page, or my own. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 18:31, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Answered on your talk page. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 18:34, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase reduces to "The issue...was whether...X...should be dismissed." Neither opinion nor prophesy, just expressing the issue before the court. If that turn of phrase bothers you, feel free to replace it, but the overall change is moving toward a neutral tone, please don't revert it back toward POV. Celestra (talk) 19:27, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

you're in violation of 3RR in your edit war with 141.154.110.173. please refrain from violating 3RR. Anastrophe (talk) 18:41, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your last note. I believe I am understanding the encyclopedic definition. While I was aware that this was not a web style or promotional venue, I can also appreciate the issues over subjective and promotional content in my last attempt at contributions, although that was not my intent. I will as time allows make another stab at providing further information which I believe is appropriate to such a listing. While my attempt may have been flawed I was seeking to build the content as it appears to have been in some other related listing, such as Christian and Missionary Alliance. Your advice is appreciated although the extraction of the entire contribution seems arbitrary. Your Hitler metaphor was probably not the best choice but I got the point. Here is my concern. If someone like me who knows the history and detail up close and personal feels that more data should be supplied and if my relationship calls such contribution into question in some editors minds, then, and I am being sincere in this, would it be more acceptable and wiser for me to provide a contribution to someone like yourself with the understanding that you will remove what does not qualify and you will edit the data so that it is in fact helpful within the wikipedia listing? ronu (talk) 22:38, 16 February 2009 (UTC)Ron Unruh[reply]

What Wikipedia's policy on conflict of interest states is not that you are completely forbidden from writing about something you know about, just that you need to be careful about what what you are writing. Believe me, I do not want the article on the EFCC to go through another deletion discussion, and that's why I removed your latest additions wholesale. Please keep in mind that I kept your earlier contributions in. Please keep in mind, also, that anything you write can be later modified by virtually anyone, and that anything written that one might possibly have grounds to disagree with (statements of opinion come to mind, see WP:NPOV) can be challenged at any moment.

The point is, to avoid challenges, you should make sure that what you write can be backed up by third-party sources, that is, sources not affiliated with the subject. This is not really important when stating trivial information such as the exact number of congregations, but when saying how the stated goals have been achieved this is essential. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 22:59, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Correct me if I am wrong... I should interpret this edit as a sign that you lost interest in discussing this article? Geo Swan (talk) 01:39, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed you are wrong. If the point you brought up in the discussion is valid, then you should have no reservations about doing as I suggested. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:40, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Really? I am glad I checked. Geo Swan (talk) 02:15, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]