User talk:Mootros/Archives/2009/September

Biography project rating

Hello Mootros - I hope you don't mind but I changed the quality rating on the Colin Talbot back to start class based on the Quality scale as outlined here. I can see making an argument for possibly upgrading to C class, but there are no third party references and the author himself has admitted to writing it as a resume piece. There are many hurdles to jump prior to it being designated as B class. This is the current example of a B class article as listed on the Wikiproject page. Cheers, ponyo (talk) 21:00, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for making contact, Ponyo. The article has gone through some major editing since the discussion about notability. Please have a look at its history. If you think it does not meet B, than I would say it should definitely be a "C". To return it "start" might miss the point slightly. What to do you think? Thanks! Mootros (talk) 21:10, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

The big concern for me is the paucity of third party reliable sources, plus the references that are included are not cited inline in order to assist in verifying the information included in the article. If you think it meets the criteria for a C Class article then upgrade accordingly (there's quite a bit of wiggle room between Start and C class), but it still needs a lot of work before it can be considered B Class. I hope that you don't take this as a criticism of all the great work you and others have done to improve the article! Cheers and Happy editing! --ponyo (talk) 21:52, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Not at all. Thanks, for pointing this out. Yes, agreed, "B" is probably not appropriate for its current state. Mootros (talk) 04:28, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Human Rights Torch Relay

If you have some time please provide us with an input at this RFC on 2008 Summer Olympics torch relay article and this Merger Contest. Thank You! --HappyInGeneral (talk) 12:38, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Done. You are welcome. Mootros (talk) 13:33, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! --HappyInGeneral (talk) 13:45, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Talk:List of online backup services

Please explain how you came to the conclusion that List of online backup services does not qualify as a stand alone list? -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 14:49, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

"Online backup services" does NOT constitute

“ lists in a particular subject area, such as a timeline of events or people and places." ”

The criteria on this page Wikipedia:Stand-alone_list is rather explicit. You may say "computing" or "computers" are subject areas. There might even be a case for a subject called "backup" or "services", I suppose. Yet, "online backup services" I would say is not a subject. It is something specific. I think the spirit in terms of the broadness in the section on stand-alone list says it all: "timeline of events or people and places". You may add there "groups of technical artefacts or concepts" OBS doe not meet this IMHO. Mootros (talk) 15:06, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Pls, see the talk page for more. Mootros (talk) 15:14, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Your edit here with an edit summary pointing the reader to the talk page is counter to the current state of the talk page discussion. Clearly, you are interpreting the discussion differently than everyone else. Please continue to use the talk page to discuss the issue until there is durable consensus on what should be done. If you are not sure what consensus means, it is basically when everyone involved says "yes, I can live with that, make the change." Until that point, please stop changing the page. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 16:58, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. Please see the talk page for my reply. Many thanks! Mootros (talk) 17:48, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Since consensus clearly does not exist, in a sign of good faith and to show that your intention is not to edit war without discussion, I ask that you please revert your last change to Comparison of online backup services and wait to make any changes to the article until a durable consensus is reached. Also, for future reference, please keep WP:3RR in mind. Lastly, there is no need to leave a talkback message on my talk page when you reply here. Thanks. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 19:02, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Reverted. Mediation? What do you think? Mootros (talk) 19:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Let's let the RFC run its course. There is no need to circumvent that process or rush to another method. After September 25, we can go to the next step if necessary. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 19:28, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

ello

Thank u very much for leaving information for me on Wikiversity. I searched for the first link you gave me, the talk page, and I couldn't find it. I then searched for the delete logs and there was no deletion. What's going on? B9 hummingbird hovering ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:06, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry! I think, it was a typo. This is the link: Talk:List_of_online_backup_services Mootros (talk) 15:37, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Bourgeois (personality): further reading?

Hi there Mootros. Nice work with the merge, but you've lost the references I added, which should be added to a Further reading section in Bourgeoisie. I don't know how to recover them. Could you? There were about twelve I think, outside the direct notes. DinDraithou (talk) 13:31, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Never mind. I just found them. DinDraithou (talk) 13:40, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

See talk page. Mootros (talk) 13:41, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

It's a little bit to excessive we need to go through them and pick some good ones. But we defiantly should use them to get some more citations. Mootros (talk) 13:43, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I have to disagree. One or two might not be needed but the others cover specific regions of the world or specific time periods. DinDraithou (talk) 13:47, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

McCloskey and Lucamante could go, I suppose. McCloskey seems to get bad reviews, whereas Lucamante is a too new "re-thinker". So yes, I agree with you now. DinDraithou (talk) 13:55, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Cool. Would we like to change it. Many thanks! Mootros (talk) 13:59, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi there. I want it merged as much as you, but it was attempted too soon and too much at once. While you're busy increasing your stake in Bourgeoisie for our benefit, I'll be refining the content in Bourgeois personality. You should also read Upper middle class in the United States if you haven't yet. DinDraithou (talk) 16:23, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I object! This article does not have any merit as discussed before. Please move content into Bourgeois or Upper middle class in the United States and revert. Many thanksMootros (talk) 16:29, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

It is your personal opinion that it has no merit, possibly because you find some of it offensive. But others believe that it does. Note that Upper middle class in the United States already linked to it.

When the article was considered for deletion, it was agreed that the creators/editors of Bourgeoisie should be consulted before a possible merge, which you did not do, simply going ahead all on your own - no Talk. Please be less enthusiastic and stop trying to give orders. DinDraithou (talk) 16:41, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Dear DinDraithou, Please see the discussion above on this page and on the talk page for a collaboration indicating agreement! You have actively participated in the move so please I ask you again to revert. If you are not sure anymore about your action, that's OK, you may call for a 3O and open the case. Thank you kindly for your consideration. Go raibh míle maith agat! Yours. Mootros (talk) 16:54, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Btw, I personally don't find the article offensive, but --to recall--it misses entirely the point on personality. It is based on no real citation and is probably original research. It can be summarised to a few sentence that the term Bourgeois is used in certain way, as it is done in Bourgeois.

This is all your POV. The reason articles like Bourgeois mentality (new title) and Upper middle class in the United States exist is to provide space for material which will otherwise be erased from main articles by consensus and territorial perseverence. This phenomenon is found throughout Wikipedia, and in fact the tendency is to Split rather than Merge. I participated to make sure those references were included, and I was the original extractor of the Italian material from its main article, for the purpose of gradually improving Bourgeois personality initially, so please don't lecture me. DinDraithou (talk) 17:24, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Third opinion?

I noticed, you inserted a second flag at the top of the article Tadeusz Piotrowski (sociologist) and I was wondering if you came there through Wikipedia:Third opinion → Active disagreements perhaps, because you've never participated in our discussions before? If so, please read my comment in talk and respond there with particulars if possible. Thank you in advance. --Poeticbent talk 14:53, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

See talk page Mootros (talk) 15:07, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Coat of arms of Dresden

A tag has been placed on Coat of arms of Dresden requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content. You may wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. DinDraithou (talk) 07:00, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

See talk page. Mootros (talk) 17:33, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident

Hello Mootros, would it be OK, if I ask you to give your evaluation on this issue? Thank you in advance. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 19:54, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

German Sources

Do you speak German? Perhaps you can collect some good German sources that counter the claims on Kingdom of Germany. Grey Fox (talk) 16:14, 18 May 2011 (UTC)