User talk:Tom Morris/Archive 3
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:Tom Morris. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 10 |
Steve James Sherlock
Hi Tom, You posted on the SJS page - keeping you posted on the debate. Secondary source info is not easy to establish on the web - but the details are correct. Info correct as per product packaging, Marc Almond Biog - Tainted Life.
Steve James Sherlock is NOT the same Steve Sherlock of Nerf Herder. You can find some secondary sources to evidence notibility on The The and Marc and the Mambas. I hope this clears up the situation and this great musician is NOT deleted and lost to Wikipeadia. Regards (212.140.116.162 (talk) 20:55, 26 August 2011 (UTC))
- I didn't participate in the deletion discussion: I only added 'deletion sorting' categories to the discussion. I have no opinion on whether the page should be deleted. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:46, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
News & Notes (in brief)
Hi Tom, I see that you are writing this week's section. WP:CROWN is not a WikiProject so I don't know where else to put it. If you think it's appropriate, I would appreciate if you could include it.
- Triple Crown awards: Last week, the awards for contributions to Do You Know, Good article and Featured content, awarded its very first award for a contribution of 100 sets of Triple crowns. The Marco Polo Centurion triple crown was awarded to TonyTheTiger for his outstanding contributions to Wikipedia. The award level was newly created for the occasion, pushing requirements for the following level, the Ultimate triple crown, to 250 sets. Editors can nominate themselves for a Triple crown with just one set of DYK, GA and FC.
Please feel free to re-word as necessary. Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks in advance. – SMasters (talk) 02:33, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Done I've put it in as it is: looks good. Someone might copyedit it. I might nudge the people responsible for the Featured Content section to start including triple crown records, GA records and other things like that in the future as it is more within their remit. Thanks! —Tom Morris (talk) 07:44, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
- Excellent, thank you so much Tom. – SMasters (talk) 09:00, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Unpatrollables
I have now created Wikipedia:Magic spell to deal with "unpatrollable" pages. Thanks for showing me the trick. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:02, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Peter's vision of a sheet with animals
Yeah, I was just coming to that. I decided to save what I had first, and then add categories and a picture. But I have some volumes in front of me right now, and I've found some good quotes. Thanks for being on the ball, though. StAnselm (talk) 07:24, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks. I haven't had nearly enough caffeine to consider myself on ball, but thanks for the compliment.
—Tom Morris (talk) 10:20, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Request for comment
May I request a comment (WP:RFC) at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dominant group (art). Marshallsumter (talk) 17:07, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
- Hi Marshall. A RfC is probably inappropriate: an Articles for Deletion nomination is a request for comment on the deletion of the article. If you could explain why you think an RfC is needed (was the nomination for deletion made in bad faith? Is their user misbehaviour? If you can give me an idea what you are concerned about, I can see if there's another option. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:32, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for the comment. I'm not sure about the use of WP:RFC but at least one other editor has indicated that asking is okay. I believe the article in question meets all criteria for a start class on wikipedia, but the main problem seems to be getting readers to either comment (which are helpful to me) or vote. One article I created had more than 3100 readers during the AfD period and only ten voted (including me). That apathy can't be good. I've also had articles AfD by Roscelese before without any effort on article discussion pages. I have the impression that reaching for the AfD button is too much of a reflex. Marshallsumter (talk) 17:58, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
- AfD may be too much of a reflex, but I'm not sure what your concern is: starting an RfC is generally not done at AfD, and the only reason you seem to want it is to increase participation at the AfD. That sounds rather like canvassing. If there isn't enough participation in the AfD, it'll get relisted and if there still isn't enough, it'll be closed as no consensus (and kept). —Tom Morris (talk) 18:10, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
- Per canvassing: "In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it is done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus." Marshallsumter (talk) 20:45, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
- AfD may be too much of a reflex, but I'm not sure what your concern is: starting an RfC is generally not done at AfD, and the only reason you seem to want it is to increase participation at the AfD. That sounds rather like canvassing. If there isn't enough participation in the AfD, it'll get relisted and if there still isn't enough, it'll be closed as no consensus (and kept). —Tom Morris (talk) 18:10, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for the comment. I'm not sure about the use of WP:RFC but at least one other editor has indicated that asking is okay. I believe the article in question meets all criteria for a start class on wikipedia, but the main problem seems to be getting readers to either comment (which are helpful to me) or vote. One article I created had more than 3100 readers during the AfD period and only ten voted (including me). That apathy can't be good. I've also had articles AfD by Roscelese before without any effort on article discussion pages. I have the impression that reaching for the AfD button is too much of a reflex. Marshallsumter (talk) 17:58, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 14:52, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
This Month in GLAM: August 2011
| |||
my edits
Tom- Joe Masheck is my cousin. He asked me to remove the article. That does not seem to be possible, so I just edited it into non-existence. I would prefer it if you would allow me to remove it.Peter J. Comerford (talk) 12:52, 5 September 2011 (UTC)Peter J. Comerford
- Hi, Peter. I've put a speedy deletion request. An admin should handle the deletion shortly. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:56, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
- And it's done! —Tom Morris (talk) 14:24, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Paul Poovathingal
Can you please review your objections to the article 'Paul Poovathingal'. User:Jponnoly Jponnoly (talk) 04:44, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
- What objections exactly? I added the deletion discussion into the Bands and musicians category. I have absolutely no opinion on whether it should be deleted or not. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:11, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Michael Acton Smith article
Hi Tom,
Thanks for flagging up your concern about the Michael Acton Smith page. I work with Michael and was just trying to update the page with the latest facts about the business and his career development, as he's recently been referenced by many of the UK's national newspapers as one of the most influential people in the digital/new media industry. Please let me know the specific parts of the article which come across as too 'adverty' and I'll try to change the tone.
Looking forward to hearing from you,
Alex
A blue shark with tentacles walks into an ADCO
Hi Tom, I thought it might make admin coaching, which Panyd is doing for both of us, even more enlightening if we exchange ideas on our talk pages or wherever. Panyd says that's fine with her, but if you're reluctant or too busy, that's fine also. Sharktopus talk 18:00, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
- Sure, sounds good. Sorry, was tired after work yesterday. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:18, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks, Tom – my real life is also tugging hard just now, but I'll see you in mop school! Sharktopus talk 21:39, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
- Sure, sounds good. Sorry, was tired after work yesterday. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:18, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
BB 2011
Please restore the ongoing updates you removed and put back the housemate bold headings and their published details. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.182.98.14 (talk) 21:10, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
- Did you read the edit summary? The descriptions were unsourced and potentially violations of the biography of living persons policy. There isn't an urgency here: we can just wait until after the launch show is done and then use a reliably sourced media report (like this) for the contestant names. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:25, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Regarding necessity of Wikipedia should provide various Lists reg.
Hi Tom, I understand that a new topic initiated by me about list of celebrity blogs violates current Quality content policy of wikipedia .
I am a new contributor, can't comment much authentically about this. But I feel that World is looking to Wikipedia for most of the information.Even researchers (Phd) are using Wikipedia as their first reference.
What I observe is that lists in Wikipedia are not enough for people's needs. Starting a group of new lists on various subjects would be useful in this case. Just maintain the quality of content of these pages, over a period of time, these pages will attain maturity and will be useful for mass.
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 17:41, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Tom, actually it's a proposed deletion, not a proposed merger. Sorry if that's not clear. I deleted it earlier today per CSD A7 (and previously as copy vio). That deletion was contest and I had a change of heart. See User talk:Ymei for the full discussion. --RA (talk) 17:42, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
David r
Tom. Prompted by David Allen Green's tweet I just read your blogpost. I figure that you should be aware of the discussion of the active account User:Zafio's possible relationship to David r here Yours, almost-instinct 12:22, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
- Oh I do apologise: I've just been looking again at your post and I see that you are already aware of this. I beg your pardon. almost-instinct 12:26, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks anyway! —Tom Morris (talk) 12:44, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Johann Hari's socks
Hari's sockpuppets tend to behave in certain ways.
- Pretty much single-purpose accounts, editing in a very limited area of interests. See User:Eyepeepeeeye/IPs
- Pro-Hari editing, to the point of being hagiographic.
- Long-winded and verbose
- Remove anti-Hari Private Eye material, claiming PE is a non-reliable source
- Like to mention that libel suits might follow, especially the likelihood of Wikipedia being open to such legal claims [1], as a way of silencing criticism of Hari. This one is especially typical of his socks: "Jess"/User:Thelionforreal was even a legal journalist!
- "Accidentally" forget to log in a few times, thereby making the IP apparent. Can then say "But my IP proves I am in X and Hari is in Y therefore we can't be the same person"
- As David Rose, editing as an IP, Hari switched IPs frequently, and ISPs less frequently. This makes tracking him difficult.
- Often challenge questioners to meet in the flesh, to prove they aren't Hari
- Will argue/agree amongst themselves, to create the semblance of "real" people
- When editing as IP socks, give a name in free text (rather than autosigning), and seem keen for people to know their identity/personal information about them and their location. Given that most IPs edit as IPs precisely because they want to remain "un-named", this is very unusual. In fact, I've only ever seen it in Hari's socks.
Given Hari's obsessive six year history of editing under various guises on Wikipedia, and his control freakery over his own article, it is not surprising he has not been be able to disengage, despite being found out. 86.152.240.151 (talk) 15:29, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Article on Swami Budhpuri Ji rewritten
As you are aware the concerned article was recommended for sppedy deletion...it has been worked upon again and is open for a review at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Swami_Budhpuri_Ji/Temp....please, leave your review...would be happy to have your suggestions on improvign it further..thanksSvechu (talk) 08:45, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Astrology
Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Astrology. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.
You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 06:35, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
More specific RfC on astrology
Thank you for your input on the RfC on Astrology. Because I was informed that the original RfC was too vague and general, I've reformulated it with specific concerns. The reformulated RfC can be found here: [[2]] Your input would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 13:57, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for the notification. I'll have a look, time permitting. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:47, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Astrology
Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Astrology. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.
You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 14:36, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Original Barnstar |
| For the efforts made in respect of keeping template usages current and appropriate. Also for the work done in ensuring images have names appropriate to their nature. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:22, 28 September 2011 (UTC) |
Proposed edit for Astrology
I am making all recent contributors to the Astrology article and its discussion page aware of a proposed amendment to the text which discusses the 1976 'Objections to astrology' and the relevance of Carl Sagan's reaction. This is in response to the comments, criticisms and suggestions that have been made on the published text, with the hope of finding a solution acceptable to all. Your opinion would be very welcome.
Thanks, -- Zac Δ talk! 15:47, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.
We have added information about the readership of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low 
to High 
.
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 01:29, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
resourceful humans
hi, how does ROWE (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ROWE) differ? RH is a similar management strategy. thanks heiko — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.204.152.53 (talk) 14:27, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Hello!
Just wanted to say a quick thank you for the "hello" message. I've had a login for Wikipedia for a while but have only made edits relatively recently so the links to documentation are much appreciated. Thanks. NicolaOsborne (talk) 16:46, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
dom&nic Page
Hi Tom. I am contacting you as I see you have referred the issue of deletion of the page I created to an area specifically regarding filmmakers. I am new to Wikipedia editing. I began a dom&nic page as I noticed there was an incomplete and outdated Dom and Nic page in existence. I am Dom Hawley one half of dom&nic. Can you give me any advice on how I make my page comply with the rules of Wikipedia. I believe everything in the article to be as factual as possible and have included third party references where possible. Do you think I Should continue to try and make the article better or do you think a dom&nic article is inappropriate for Wikipedia. Many Thanks for any advice. Dom (Domley (talk) 22:36, 5 October 2011 (UTC))
- Hi Dom, Sorry I didn't respond to your earlier message: there is an existing page at Dom and Nic, and it is pretty likely that the page you've created (Dom&nic) will be merged into that. Marek has moved the additional references you've added to the Dom and Nic page. Then it is quite likely that the new page will be redirected to the old page.
- One thing though: I'm presuming you are Dom Hawley of Dom and Nic, based on your username and interest in the article. If so, please don't edit the page. Wikipedia has policies about conflict of interest and you really shouldn't be editing pages about yourself or things you are involved with. If there's an issue with something about the page, leave a message on the talk page about the article. This isn't a personal judgment: the reason we have the policy is to try and prevent, you know, big businesses, politicians and other powerful people from whitewashing their pages. If you've got any questions about the COI guidelines, feel free to ask and I'll do my best to answer.
- Also, you did the video for Block Rockin' Beats and We Come One? That's awesome. Love those tracks and really like the videos too. —Tom Morris (talk) 06:46, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Revelationapp
Hi Tom Morris
Wanted to touch base with you to ask how I establish sufficient "notability" for my wiki article. It's an app on the App Store. Have you clicked the links I provided? What else do you need?
Oh, and by any chance are you a golfer ;)
76.91.205.139 (talk) 13:28, 6 October 2011 (UTC)Matt Dorff
I am new to Wikipedia and it is a bit confusing...where is the "reply" button? Oh well.
When you say "mainstream media" do you mean print? There are many prominent blogs that have done pieces on RevelationApp. It has received ecstatic reviews on the App Store. It is based on a translation by a clergyman high up in the Greek Orthodox church that received fine reviews when it was published in print form in 2003.
This is a serial release and the last part won't be released until early December, which is when we'll get more mainstream reviews. But it seems as though we have established enough of a presence on the web between the App Store, the blogosphere, YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, etc. Here is a recent piece done by a German magazine which will be printing images for their January publication http://www.timotheusmagazin.de/2011/09/27/revelationapp-die-offenbarung-in-bildern/
If you could give me a more specific example of a mainstream media source that would better qualify us, but that isn't unrealistic given where we are debuting the content (as an App), I could attempt to contact them to make a mention of us. Do you have any suggestions?
Thanks Tom. And again, pardon the lack of familiarity with how this Talk stuff works. If I had one suggestion, it would be to add a "reply" button. Mattdorff1 (talk) 17:44, 6 October 2011 (UTC)Matt Dorff
mattdorff@aol.com
- Hi Matt, on Wikipedia "notable" basically means that the topic (in this case, the application) "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" (see WP:GNG). I had a search around and couldn't find stuff in reliable sources. Basically, a topic on Wikipedia needs to be covered in mainstream media sources: newspapers, magazines, books etc. I proposed that the article be deleted because it doesn't seem to have those. And, no, no relation to the golfer. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:12, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments re dom&nic
Hi Tom. Thanks for your help. I am Dom Hawley from dom&nic. I am very new to wikipedia editing and seem to have got off on the wrong foot a little. Anyway I do appreciate the issues of COI and it does make absolute sense that a person refrains from editing information about themselves, so I shall. My intention was just to improve the quality of the information about us on wikipedia (within the rules and spirit of wikipedia of course). Having seen the dom and nic article I found it to be lacking a number of encyclopedic facts that I could add quickly from first hand knowledge (backed up with the references of course) so I created the dom&nic page. I did this partly because I didn't want to tamper majorly with the dom and nic article that someone else had started (dumb I realise now as that is how wikipedia works!!) but also because we are usually known as dom&nic rather than dom and Nic, in the same way that a band may use numbers rather than letters in their name for example. I just wanted to help make an article that was encyclopedic, factually interesting and as comprehensive as possible.
You may be able to help clarify something for me. Before creating the dom&nic article I first looked at the entries for other music video and commercial film directors on wikipedia to see what common format they took. I then tried to replicate that. It seems quite usual to have a videography listing the names of work they have done along with the year. I therefore compiled a completely comprehensive list of work we have directed and included that in the article with links to the relevant videos on our youtube channels. I thought that this was a useful, good and appropriate thing to do but it was removed by another editor who commented that wikipedia is not the place to have links to your youtube videos. I don't really understand why this is the case when they are relevant to the article and not for self promotion but nevertheless I re entered the videography without any links and again this was removed. I don't really understand why it is not appropriate to list the work of a director in the same way one might have a discography for a recording artist. The problem I presume, is that I myself have listed them, so it seems like self promotion. A number of videographies I have seen elsewhere however are not always complete or comprehensive which doesn't give a true representation of the work done by the director I feel. For example if only the well known "good" stuff is listed it may mislead a reader about the true body of work of that director. I included every single piece of work good and bad in the videography (all of which should be possible to reference and verify by others). It would be difficult for any other person to know the full list of work we have done, indeed it took nic, john and myself a while to compile it. Obviously for a really well known director of say for example feature films, it is going to be pretty easy for a non related wikipedia editors to make their biography correct and comprehensive but for less well known directors the chances diminish greatly. This poses an interesting debate. Is it favourable to have to have an incomplete biography which is by the nature of its incompleteness less true than a more complete biography which is by the nature of its comprehensiveness more true if the comprehensive biography requires editing by a non impartial party to become more comprehensive. This is of course based on both biographies being neutrally written, factually correct and citing the relevant references. Anyhow I didn't intend to ramble on so much. Anyway, thanks again and any thoughts and help you can offer would be greatly appreciated. Also very glad you like Block Rockin Beats and We Come 1 videos. If you are interested there is the original cut of Block Rockin Beats on our youtube channel. There are guns in this cut which was deemed inappropriate for TV broadcast at the time. We had to shoot an alternative version where the pursuers are holding torches instead. I don't think the guns version has ever been used anywhere except by us which is a shame as it changes the story somewhat. Anyway thanks again, kind regardsDomley (talk) 17:01, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Taric25 - Image licensing on Commons
I replied. [3] Taric25 (talk) 23:08, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
RE: A fox for you.
I thanked you over IRC earlier, but thank you once more. :P — Joseph Fox 15:51, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
https.js
If this works for you, it means you're logged in via http. This means your session cookie is stealable. which means it didn't buy any protection for users with elevated privs, sadly. The real solution to this is to just make all logged in users always go via https... but it's not a good idea to do this until the new https support is well baked. --Gmaxwell (talk) 02:38, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
- Ah, good point. I'll blank it and get an admin to delete it. —Tom Morris (talk) 06:41, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for closing this, don't know what happened, must have been a Twinkle error ... Mtking (edits) 07:27, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Campaign for "santorum" neologism
Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Campaign for "santorum" neologism. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.
You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 07:43, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Re: Wole Oguntokun
Dear Tom Morris,
It was brought to my attention a few days ago that Wikipedia was contemplating deleting the article written on me, "Wole Oguntokun". It has not been an easy task finding whom to write in respect of the matter as directions on Wikipedia are not always clear to those uninitiated in computer-speak.
The said article was first placed on your site without prompting on my part by a third party, Lami Yakubu, a couple of years ago but there are no spurious claims there. I might have been the cause of your site's recent warnings of deletion by my own attempts to clean up the writing a few days ago, during which I removed a number of citations in the process. I have since reversed this and indeed added many more citations. I have contributed my part to theatre in Nigeria and would appreciate you re-considering the flags placed on the page by Wikipedia.
Sincerely Wole Oguntokun
A lot of knowledge goes wasted together with the spirit to help.
Please don't take this the wrong way. It's merely constructive criticism.
I think it's very bad for Wikipedia that some editors choose to delete regular user's attempt to share what we have good knowledge about. Why not do a fact check and improve instead of deleting? Wikipedia has a very complex set of rules that are impossible for regular users to know by heart. But Wikipedia relies on our knowledge. When our efforts are deleted again and again, it's of course not hard to understand that we lose interest to help (I speak for many). For example these pages with info about music albums. In the beginning there were 4 albums from the same band (they've been around for about 10 years). Identically submitted and with similar choice of facts. All albums are released world wide on several record labels. 2 of the albums are deleted. And 2 are still present. Why not delete all? Or better yet, keep all (and improve if necessary)?. Narcissistic editors have already killed my spirit to spend more free time here, but hopefully someone else still bothers. I suggest that some 'real' editors take this seriously before too much knowledge is wasted.
PS. I deleted those pages (tried to) because I can't see how they can be accurate when the others were not. Doesn't make sense at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Metallica1980 (talk • contribs) 12:34, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
- Hi Metallica1980, I hope you don't mind me jumping in here. Can you tell me which articles were deleted that you think shouldn't have been? We have a process here called proposed deletion ("prod") in which someone can tag an article for potential deletion if they believe it doesn't fit in the encyclopedia, and if, within seven days, no one contests that judgment, the article is semi-automatically deleted. It sounds like that's probably what happened here, but I can't be sure unless I know which articles you're talking about. If it's the case that the articles you're talking about were "prod"ed, then all you have to do is request that they be undeleted, either here (where I or another admin who watches Tom's talk page will take care of it), or at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion (the actual noticeboard for requesting undeletion).
- Those things said, let me point out to you that only administrators have the ability to delete things, and blanking articles as you apparently were doing is generally viewed as unconstructive (unless you were the creator of the article and no one else had made any substantial contributions to it, but that doesn't look like the case here). Please don't do that again; if you feel an article should be deleted, you can propose it for deletion under the same process I explained above (WP:PROD), or through WP:Articles for Deletion if you think the deletion will be contested. Blanking an article the way you were doing won't get it deleted, and will probably always be viewed as unconstructive, especially if you don't think there's anything wrong with them and are trying to remove it just because don't understand why something else was deleted. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 13:57, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
- I was going to respond but Fluffernutter said what I'd say. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:05, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
- I was going to respond but Fluffernutter said what I'd say.
Basically I can understand and agree with what you just said. But I think it's too often that I see mine (or friends) contributions removed without real reason. As for example in this case where only 50% of a discography is removed (amusingly enough from the point where the band changed vocalist). This sounds to me that someone holds a grudge towards the content, the band, or the albums and asks for removal. And no one seems to investigate further and deletes it after 7 days. How come the person that chooses to delete 50% of a discography aren't interested to check the other 50%? Or do just a minimum of research to see if the information at Wikipedia was actually correct? If Wikipedia wants contribution from "regular people" it can't be expected that those "regular people" also should be monitoring their contributions for the rest of their lives if someone should question it and get it deleted after 7 days. I'm sure Wikipedia gets a lot of false contributions and self promotion that need to be dealt with. But if it is this easy to remove accurate information it will surely make many contributers lose interest in adding to the encyclopedia. After all, we all work for free. In this case I'm discussing the band Evil Masquerade from Denmark. I can see that there have been several attempts to remove album covers as well. That is also very strange. As far as I know, album covers are free to use at Wikipedia. But still there's even a discussion about that. The albums that were removed can be found in the Discography section of the page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evil_Masquerade (the albums Third Act and Fade to Black). I don't care about this anymore. I have decided to stop bothering because I have better things to do with my time. But I just wanted to share my thoughts about my (and several others) experiences here at Wikipedia. It's a shame. Metallica1980 (talk) 01:22, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
This Month in GLAM: September 2011
| |||
Please comment on Talk:Astrology
Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Astrology. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.
You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 08:26, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
A beer for you
|
Thankyou for participating in my request for adminship. Now I've got lots of extra buttons to try and avoid pressing by mistake... Redrose64 (talk) 14:49, 14 October 2011 (UTC) |
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.
We have added information about the readership of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High .
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 18:49, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Independent Christian Churches/Churches of Christ
Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Independent Christian Churches/Churches of Christ. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.
You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 09:17, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Explanation as to why you reverted my edits
Kindly justify your having reverted my edits on Susan Lindauer. The last one was annotated with references, so I don't see your point.
For example, do you have grounds that she *not* be called a US intelligence asset, or that her title not include that referenced fact? Please elaborate. Also please explain how removing referenced facts is not NPOV. Thanks in advance. 1whitedove2011 (talk) 17:09, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
No, here are my questions:
- Why do you have issue with what was done to her being called wrongfully imprisoned?
- Why do you have issue with her being called a U.S. intelligence asset?1whitedove2011
(talk) 17:12, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
- I have no problem with any of that. The reason I reverted you was because your edit looked like vandalism. My senses are not 100% guaranteed vandalism-detection tools. I apologise that I failed to see that you adding a fairly controversial fact to a biographical article might not be vandalism even though it is a ridiculously large proportion of the time. I apologise, I made a mistake. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:02, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
- Hi TomM,
- Thanks, that was nice of you to be so forthcoming.
- Frankly, her bio presents a pretty strange story, but many of the (so-called) "strange points" of her story have been externally-validated ex post facto, notably the points that she was "wrongfully imprisoned", which is a term indicating she was denied the right to a fair trial. I wasn't committing vandalism at all. On the contrary, I have the impression that her initial bio-sketch was a bit on the defamatory side - as was the news-coverage of her arrest. I've read parts of her new book, and in-comparison to the news-coverage, she presents an utterly different story. For example, when she was first-arrested, and accused of being an "unregistered agent for Iraq" (an Iraqi spy), she was described (she says wrongfully) by a NYT reporter as (paraphrased) "having stuck her tongue-out at the Prosecutor at her arraignement". In her book she refuted that, and generally stated that she was being defamed by the media.
- Generally it sounds as-if she was "hired and deployed" and then later "defamed and cast-off" when it was expedient. This kind of thing apparently does happen.
- Given that WP is supposed to be NPOV, I would suppose that both sides could be presented. I tried to balance it out, that's all.
- All the best. 1whitedove2011 (talk) 11:51, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
A technical question
Hi Tom, I wonder if I could ask for you help on something?
I've been asked a question on my talk page about installing MediaWiki extensions.
Unfortunately it's not something I've done before.
I thought you'd probably be the best person to ask. (if not, could you direct me to someone who can help?)
I'm sure John (User:Mrjohncummings), the organiser of WP:GLAM/MonmouthpediA, would be very grateful for any advice you could give him...
Thanks in advance. :-) Marek.69 talk 19:42, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi Tom
Thanks very much for your help, you explained things a treat, I managed to make it work pretty much straight away. Cheers Mrjohncummings (talk) 23:00, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
A bowl of strawberries for you!
|
Thank you for your help, Tom :-) Marek.69 talk 16:06, 19 October 2011 (UTC) |
Please comment on Talk:List of new religious movements
Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:List of new religious movements. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.
You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 10:17, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
John Kasich Article
Thanks for adding more sources to the Police Controversy section. My initial revert was because I failed to see how a single youtube video qualified as a reliable source. I still feel that the section places undue weight on a seemingly non-notable issue. However, I'm too busy working on other articles right now, and I worry that any hasty changes I make to the John Kasich article would unfairly reflect my POV. Nonetheless, I thank you for adding more reputable sources. At the end of the day, that is my M.O.
Regards! Bowmerang (talk) 22:25, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Dear Mr Morris
I have posted an article with the caption 'An Analysis of Offences affecting administration of criminal justice under Nigerian law,' to the sandbox page. I would like to implore you to please find time to go through the article and see if you can tinker with it in order to bring it to the desired standard for publication in the wikipedia. I know how valuable time is to a busy scholar like you but I hope you will spare some of your time to look at this article. Mr Haworth had annoyingly looked at the article due to the method in which I loaded it into his box. This informed my decision to put it in sandbox and to humbly request for experienced editors to look at it.
I believe that editing the article is not a waste time because the article if published would be of immense value to both the bar and the bench in the sense that topics analysed in the article will be of interest to them.
Thanks
Dr OjiIkpe 01:07, 23 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ikpe (talk • contribs)
Dear Mr Morris
I have posted an article titled 'An analysis of some offences affecting administration of criminal justice under Nigerian law,' to the sandbox. I would like to implore you to please find time to look at this article with a view to editing it. I believe that the article would be of immense value to both the bar and the bench. Mr Haworth had annoyingly look at the article due to how I mistakenly loaded 70 kbyates into his mail box. I believe that if experienced editors like you tinker with the article its quality would be enhanced.
Thanks
Dr OjiIkpe 01:45, 23 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ikpe (talk • contribs)