User talk:Noroton

Archives

User talk:Noroton/Archive to June 2007

List of people from Connecticut

Hi Norton, and thanks for posting that note on my page, but I think you have the wrong guy, I haven't contributed since the 21st May... Whiskey in the Jar 21:00, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah right, I se now. I didn't actually realise, at the time, that it was anything more than a vandal. I have been out for a while after all! Well I hope the problem's all sorted, and if you need a hand, just holler. Thanks matey, and happy trails... Whiskey in the Jar 21:04, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gettysburg Review

Nice article, but its going to be hard to defend without references. I removed the prod, but I expect to see it at AfD. DGG 06:21, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Klan in Fairfield County

Noroton,

I've reverted your edit to Fairfield County. As it stands, no other county in Connecticut has any history in its article. And Fairfield has none either, save the long Klan section that you've added over five different editor's reverts over the last year. Please explain on the talk page why you believe this belongs in the article. Jd2718 00:01, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you've reverted a typo I corrected in another article [1]. I understand that you are unhappy with our disagreement over Fairfield County, Connecticut, but intentionally introducing even minor errors into an article is not acceptable. It is also surprising to see you at an article unrelated to your usual edits, but where I was editing earlier today. I am going off-line. Perhaps you can undo the edit before you sign off. Jd2718 00:32, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Since it was a heading, the edit summary showed the previous version, rather than the new. I have done the same thing. In the meantime, I went to the Wikiproject Connecticut to see if I could solicit some comments. If you have other suggestions about bringing in other editors, I'd be happy to help. Good night. Jd2718 02:03, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please revert this edit. You added the same section twice. I'd also like to ask you to be more mindful of civility in your edit summaries in the future. When you accuse unknown editors (me?) with a summary like "add back section surreptitiously removed" you create an atmosphere of recrimination, rather than productive editing. Jd2718 01:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty obvious from the "history" feature who makes what edit, so accusing you wasn't really possible unless you run Anomebot2: [2]

Clayton Middle/High School

I don't see how the additions do anything to increase the school's notability. Corvus cornix 16:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Existence is not notability. None of the additions to the page change my mind that the school is different from any other run of the mill school. Corvus cornix 16:35, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks for improving this article so that it meets WP standards! --Butseriouslyfolks 16:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Board Candidacy

Hi! I'm leaving you this note because we've had extensive and/or productive interaction over the course of my time on this Wiki. I (yep, little ol' Jouster!) am running for election to the Wikimedia Board of Trustees. I would greatly appreciate it if you would please take a look at my submission of candidacy, and consider endorsing me, as that is a requirement for me to stand for election.

If you have any questions or concerns about this notice, please don't hesitate to poke me on my Talk page. If you object to this solicitation for endorsement, please do not hesitate to remove it from your Talk page with my apologies; it will not appear again.

I look forward to serving you all on the Board! Jouster (whisper) 18:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your endorsement! However, Meta doesn't automatically link back to your account on this Wikipedia; each WikiProject has its own user namespace. As such, in order to endorse, you need to add a link to your Meta page from your user page here, and a link to your user page here from your Meta user page (thus confirming that you are not merely a pretender to your distinguished name!). This is easier than it sounds; just add something along the lines of "I am [[w:en:User:Noroton]]" to your Meta page, and "I am [[m:User:Noroton]]" to your User page here. Sorry for the confusion over requirements, and thank you again for your support! Jouster (whisper) 02:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! "Eendorsement identification folderol", eh? Can't remember the last time I saw that word used in conversation. You win the Make-Jouster-Giggle barnstar! Now to go make it. /me fires up MSPaint.... ;) Jouster (whisper) 02:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

School improvement and advocacy

I want to thank you for all of the work you've done on behalf of school articles over the recent past. While I still find the creation of the AfD for Clayton Middle/High School three minutes after the article's creation inherently inappropriate, I thank you for your getting the ball rolling to expand the article. As you have stated, high schools have the verifiable and reliable sources available to establish notability; sometimes you just have to dig deeper to find them. I've been focusing on New Jersey schools and adding what I can upon creation and over time to further establish notability. In a world in which collaboration on establishing notability was truly a goal, new articles for schools -- where the presumption should be that notability can be established -- should be given a reasonable amount of time to grow and expand to satisfy the consensus of notability, without being forced to expand an article with a gun pointed at one's head. As long as we can add independent sources for school articles, these articles will be accepted and will pass AfD if submitted. I sincerely hope that you can find the time to keep up your contributions on the school front, improving new and existing articles, and helping to do what it takes to turn the tide on other school AfDs by improving articles nominated for deletion. Keep it up. My sincerest thanks for your efforts. Please feel free anytime to let me know via my talk page or via Wiki email if I can help you with anything. Alansohn 02:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note. I've admired the work you've done at AfD:Schools, too (and especially the improvements you've made to school articles). I think ultimately the best thing we can do is make our arguments in the deletion discussions and, when we have some support, get enough support to change WP:ORG or WP:N to recognize that high schools, like hospitals and communities, are just inherently notable. A while back, we seem to have had more support for that (although I could be wrong, I think the current group of people at the deletion discussions is less supportive). I think when we gather enough support again, we should make that move, and I'll contact you when the time seems ripe.

Too often, I let arguments on Wikipedia get under my skin. I think we should both be careful of that, because we're more likely to garner support over time if we avoid it. I have to say though, you were baited (purposefully or not) with that three-minute deletion. I do think that our position is the way Wikipedia is trending over time, in fact, I think it's inevitable that as Wikipedia grows, all high schools and most other schools will have their own articles. We can afford to be patient. Noroton 02:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- While I have no reason whatsoever to believe that the three-minute AfD was purposeful, we need to start documenting a better case that shows that there is a strong consensus on school notability, especially as it relates to high schools with meaningful sources. I don't think that we'll get any consensus on guideline for what makes a school notable, but an effort that documents school AfDs and shows that school articles with reliable sources have been overwhelmingly successful at surviving AfDs, would help in any subsequent AfD for any other similar school article. Again, I truly appreciate hearing another strong voice in support of school articles on Wikipedia. Alansohn 03:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fairfield County, Connecticut

The short answer to your question on my talk page is "no". Each of the two edits [4], [5] made to this article by the Anomebot changed only geodata tags and whitespace layout, as designed, as can be seen by inspecting the relevant diffs. Please check your facts before making unwarranted accusations. -- The Anome 08:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Draft notability proposal on Schools etc.

I have become aware of this draft proposal by independent means, and while I understand the good intent and meaning being expressed within this draft proposal you are working on, I don't necessarily agree with the premise. The issue of notability on Wikipedia is a big one, and one which has been thrashed out after many years of discussion and community consensus. To simply give blanket notability to a group of institutions is inherently bad, and would not sit well within the context of WP:N, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:OR, and others. The standard for notability generally requires that the article subject has been the subject of multiple independent articles demonstrating the notability of the organisation, through works, deeds, results, or lack thereof which leads to the occurrence of a notable incident.

Speaking in the context of WP:RS, if the organisation is notable it should not be a problem to gather significant materials which meet both WP:N and WP:V. Granted, some of the core information about the article subject may be from primary sources, but these in the spirit of relevant policies should not be the sole basis to which notability is established, particularly when placed in the context of issues raised at WP:WEASEL where it is common for article subjects to make themselves sound better than they actually may be in self-published materials such as admissions prospectuses, marketing materials, etc. When looking at the specific issues of schools which you are focused on, you have to look at what makes a notable school. You also need to consider the fact that no proposal for defining the notability requirements for schools has ever made it up in the community, particularity proposals such as WP:SCHOOL (being the best attempt so far) which despite making reasonable attempts to strictly define what makes such an institution notable have never received enough community support who have instead chosen to default such issues back to WP:CORP which is the standard bearer in notability cases for schools at the present moment.

While I understand you are trying to make a reasonable effort to improve WP regarding issues you are strongly involved in, you need to realise that there has been many attempts by many others before you to do so, none of which have ever been successful. If you can find a way to build reasonable community agreement regarding notability criteria for such institutions, then I wish you the best of luck with your efforts in that endeavour. Thewinchester ^(talk) 13:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Winchester

Thanks for your two-cents. Although it was unsolicited, and a draft is just that -- a draft -- I appreciate your interest and help. Here's a somewhat detailed response to your points. I'm copying your message and sticking in my responses after each of your points:

I have become aware of this draft proposal by independent means, and while I understand the good intent and meaning being expressed within this draft proposal you are working on, I don't necessarily agree with the premise. The issue of notability on Wikipedia is a big one, and one which has been thrashed out after many years of discussion and community consensus.

Actually, the standards can change and have changed even recently to some degree. Several months ago, "educational institutions" were not part of WP:ORG. Before that, a section on schools was in that guideline. Other ideas come and go, some get put into guidelines, some get taken out. These guidelines aren't ancient, they aren't sacred and they aren't unchangeable.

To simply give blanket notability to a group of institutions is inherently bad, and would not sit well within the context of WP:N, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:OR, and others.

You're treating guidelines like sacred texts. We Wikipedians make the policy. There is no such thing as an "inherently bad" policy. The policy is good or bad for reasons alone. We can discuss and debate those reasons.

The standard for notability generally requires that the article subject has been the subject of multiple independent articles demonstrating the notability of the organisation, through works, deeds, results, or lack thereof which leads to the occurrence of a notable incident.

Speaking in the context of WP:RS, if the organisation is notable it should not be a problem to gather significant materials which meet both WP:N and WP:V.

I don't think that's true. It is beyond dispute that every single high school in the United States, for instance, generates multiple reports from independent sources (newspapers, other government bodies such as state Departments of Education, etc.) that are reliable. The problem is that they aren't always available online. Pick out a high school from the archived deletion debates, one where the article was deleted. Go to Google News and type in the name of that school in quotes. If you don't get at least two news articles about that school that would meet WP:N, go to Google Archives and you will surely get the articles, although they'll cost money to access. If the articles aren't online, it is extremely safe to assume they have been written and are in some library or other archives. We should not have to wait for someone to find them when (1) there is adequate proof that the school or other entity that I address EXISTS (unlike other subjects of articles, which is one important reason why we have WP:N); (2) it is obvious that there is basic information available from both every state Education Department (because they must generate reports on schools under the U.S. No Child Left Behind Act) and from the website of the school district itself (similar reasoning applies to the other entities I mention: hospitals, for instance). The current rules don't address the fact that the information we have at hand is solid enough to start articles with, often quite substantial articles.

Here's another important point about the availability of information: In poorer communities where there isn't as much advertising revenue, there are fewer newspapers covering schools and they have less of a presence on the Internet. Often the schools themselves have less of a presence on the Web as well. Therefore information, while it is published by independent, reliable sources, is less available. This introduces a bias in which institutions in wealthier areas are more likely to meet WP:N even though institutions in poorer areas will come extremely close to meeting notability standards, and even though the information that is available on the Web and elsewhere is, in fact, reliable enough on which to base a good Wikipedia article. Given the continued expansion of the Internet (and of Wikipedia and the number of Wikipedians), I'm sure this won't be a problem forever. I just don't want to wait years to have to revive articles about high schools that were previously deleted. Each time that happens, an administrator will have to approve creation of an article on a subject previously deleted. This will discourage those articles from being recreated. This is a pernicious result of our current policy.

Granted, some of the core information about the article subject may be from primary sources, but these in the spirit of relevant policies should not be the sole basis to which notability is established, particularly when placed in the context of issues raised at WP:WEASEL where it is common for article subjects to make themselves sound better than they actually may be in self-published materials such as admissions prospectuses, marketing materials, etc.

You mention "admissions prospectuses, marketing materials" which is important, because the focus of those guidelines and policies is more on nonpublic organizations that have more freedom to lie about themselves and exaggerate than public entities do. Public entities are far less likely to be in the business of selling themselves, lying and exaggerating. They are subject to public scrutiny through the news media, other organizations, other government regulatory agencies and the Freedom of Information Act, making most of their internal documents public. They have strong incentives not to go so far as to lie. And don't, in an abstract way, believe that WP:N and WP:V are anything but broad, practical tools for trying to tamp down the overly positive information that Wikipedia presents on many subjects. In the real world, this idea of mine is not going to change content that much -- it will instead serve to keep some articles from being deleted. The articles can still be about as neutral as they are now. To some degree, a some articles will remain (that would otherwise be deleted or never started) that rely on the subject for too much information for too long a period. That's the downside. The upside is that we will retain articles about more subjects, and those articles will still present accurate (if incomplete) information about those subjects. Remember that most Wikipedia articles do just that: present accurate if incomplete information about their subjects. I see benefits here that don't involve a great falling off of standards or a slippery slope of any sort leading to a general relaxation of standards, which I think would be the two biggest dangers of a proposal like this.

When looking at the specific issues of schools which you are focused on, you have to look at what makes a notable school. You also need to consider the fact that no proposal for defining the notability requirements for schools has ever made it up in the community, particularity proposals such as WP:SCHOOL (being the best attempt so far) which despite making reasonable attempts to strictly define what makes such an institution notable have never received enough community support who have instead chosen to default such issues back to WP:CORP which is the standard bearer in notability cases for schools at the present moment. While I understand you are trying to make a reasonable effort to improve WP regarding issues you are strongly involved in, you need to realise that there has been many attempts by many others before you to do so, none of which have ever been successful.

The idea of not doing something because other efforts have failed would end progress in every area. We must try.

If you can find a way to build reasonable community agreement regarding notability criteria for such institutions, then I wish you the best of luck with your efforts in that endeavour. Thewinchester

I wrote up the proposal quickly and you responded rather quickly. Everything is in flux -- changeable and tailorable. I appreciate your taking the time, even though I disagree with much of what you say. I'd be interested in what you think of my responses. Please feel free to intersperse your own reactions with mine here, if you think the effort is worthwhile. Noroton 15:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alton C. Crews Middle School

Excellent catch! I think that the article title's use of underscores interfered with my Google News/Archive search, and led me to falsely assume that sources were not available. The Intel award is prima facie evidence of notability, and I agree that there is more than enough sources to establish notability, even for folks like our new friend from down under, User:Thewinchester, author of the WP:SCHOOLCRUFT article. Do you want to make the changes now or later? You can reach me via wiki email from my user talk page if you want to discuss these school notability issues further. Alansohn 17:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add the Intel one and maybe one other. If you have time, I'll leave the rest to you. I also took out the names of the teachers. Noroton 17:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed that teh Crews article needed a major pruning. In a bizarre coincidence, I had just created an article for the Intel Schools of Distinction award a few days ago, based on the 2007 winners, and had started to create articles for some of the schools. As to Crews, even with the addition, a user copy of the expanded article should be created in the event that the AfD for the article is closed as delete based on votes predicated on the pre-improved version. I will add these 16 winners to the Intel Schools of Distinction article and add as appropriate to existing articles, and consider creation of articles for schools that don't yet have articles. Alansohn 17:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you 100% re open mindedness. However, I don't think this article is there yet. I'm looking at one solid reliable source, and it appears that article is primarily about the teacher and the trip, and that the school is incidental. There are no citations to newspaper articles about the school winning the Intel award. I point this out not because I question whether the award was received, but because I am not convinced of the notability of the award. While it may be rare, scarcity does not demonstrate worth. It's certainly not on the level of a Blue Ribbon. In fact, the Intel award article (which is albeit new) only cites to one reliable source, and it's a newspaper reporting on a local school winning the award, not an article on the award program itself. Don't get me wrong -- the article is clearly much better now than it was at the start of the AfD. It just hasn't crossed the WP:N threshold yet as far as I'm concerned. --Butseriouslyfolks 19:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm relying on WP:N notability, not a concept of fame or noteworthiness. All I saw in the award article was one independent article about the award. (I'm disregarding the self-generated Intel and Scholastic press releases for notability purposes, as they are not independent.) So I don't see the award as notable, and therefore winning it would not per se confer notability upon a school. Turning to the school, we have one newspaper article about a teacher that may or may not constitue significant coverage of the school, and the press release about the maybe notable, maybe nonnotable award, which is I suppose independent of the school but not independent of the awarder, which is affiliated with the school by virtue of the award. Taken together, I don't see that as "significant coverage in reliable sources [plural] that are independent of the subject", as required by WP:N. I hope you understand my thinking, even if you may not agree with it. Take care! --Butseriouslyfolks 20:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Ghost, you have swayed me with the additional citations to reliable, independent sources. Thanks for improving the article! --Butseriouslyfolks 03:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I removed the press release from the AfD before some well-meaning editor pastes it into the article. We were obviously using it to discuss the article in question, but I think it's a copyvio if we leave it there. The link remains if anybody needs to see the whole thing. See you around. --Butseriouslyfolks 03:21, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Draft proposal

I agree with significant portions of your proposal. I do agree that at a minimum, that schools should almost never be targets for speedy deletion nor should AfDs be created before an opportunity has been given to add the ample sources that are available fro almost all schools, especially at the high school level. Both you and I have shown that it is possible in minutes to take an almost empty article and find and add sources to convince a majority to keep the article. The sources are there for just about every high school. In addition to a couple dozen American schools that have been modified to save them while under AfD, I have also "saved" articles for schools from Australia, India and Nepal, if I recall. While I agree about notability, the problem with school AfDs in general is that there is a very small, but very vocal, minority that believes the exact opposite; that no school is notable, regardless of the number or quality of sources. Many of these folks will do anything to prevent implementation of any blanket definition of notability (i.e., a school is notable as long as its article meets set criteria), let alone a definition that all high schools are notable (even without sources). I have also been working on a proposal that would replace an attempt to define a hard-and-fast definition of notability with an evidence-based approach. My idea for a standard would be to review high school AFDs and say the we've had AfDs on X number of schools, and a review shows that there are certain characteristics of schools that pass AfD, and the overwhelming majority of schools with any meaningful content pass AfD. Other schools that meet these criteria would have voters vote to keep these articles based on the precedent established through this review of earlier AfDs. If you look through school AfDs, there are a number of people who will vote to keep any school article and a number that will vote to delete any school article, regardless of quality from either direction. There is a bigger middle ground that expects to see some meat to an article that includes basic sources and a claim of distinction. The recent AfD at Clayton Middle/High School or today's Wakefield High School (Wakefield, Massachusetts) AfD all had the middle ground tilt to keep once sources were added combined with a claim of notability. These articles don't need to be FA quality, but there is an expectation that they have some meaningful content. In addition to creating a new schools proposal -- and I agree that your's would be part of it -- we need to be diligent in monitoring school AfDs and improving articles, whenever we can, to establish AfD-proof notability, before the next AfD starts. Alansohn 21:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I said at the Wakefield discussion, i basically agree that any established HS will probably be notable, if enough effort is taken in the editing. I think we should encourage such editing, but to have school articles with nothing particular to say is being a directory. I accept directory elements without much question, and I even support articles primarily as directories when they are useful, particularly if there is no other free web source. But there is directory material online for every government operated school in the main English speaking countries, and for almost all church schools, and it's very easy to find. So I think we can expect a little bit more. Further, I have two practical reasons: first, we want to educate, and learning how to research one's own neighborhood is a rather basic exercise, and all local librarians will be able to help. Second, school articles are probably the first thought of every high school aged vandal, and a large number of articles with nobody interested in maintaining them will be an inevitable problem. We could of course semi-protect all the school articles; personally, I'd support that in any case, but I think the consensus would be firmly against it. I also don't really think that all middle schools and elementary schools will be found to be notable without more research than is likely to be available, and I don't want to lead the way into that.

I agree that a school article--except one that merely contains vandalism--should not be speedied. Even in speedying the pure vandals, sometimes people do forget to check whether there is a layer of usable material underneath it--I've been caught out once or twice on that myself. We could of course just blank the vandalism and keep the empty article, but why? So I wouldn't support a flat prohibition.

I sometimes have difficult in saving a schools article from India or Sri Lanka where there simply isn't online material to be found. I'm sure other material could be found, but not from the US.

I think there is real potential for an agreement, as long as the two words "every" and "none" are avoided. I will support any reasonable proposal that takes some of the repetitive burden out of AfD. We might want an extended template--a checklist of what material might be worth including and what not in typical cases. DGG 22:02, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

File:Resilient-silver.png		The Resilient Barnstar
		Now that the Stearns High School AfD debate is over. I want to say that your "no school is non-notable no matter how horrible the article is" policy pisses me off to no end, and I cringe every time I see your name attached to an AfD discussion. HOWEVER... I can't help but be impressed as hell at your willingness to stand up and throw out a keep vote knowing that you are going to be crucified for it and knowing that it's not going to change the final outcome. In other words...way to stand up for your convictions. Trusilver 15:28, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Copyrights

Hello Noroton.

Please read Wikipedia:Copyrights. You're not allowed to copy and paste articles. You should move them. Greetings, —DerHexer (Talk) 17:05, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DerHexer is correct, you can't copy and paste the contents of the article after a move, because it separates the page history (leaving it back at the redirect). This type of move requires an administrator to temporarily delete the desired redirect, and then move the page. I have done this. Leebo ^T/C 17:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just kind of jumped in and fixed it when I saw the discussion on DerHexer's talk page. It may have been more clear for me to explain first. To clarify, you do want it at Controversies about the word niggardly, correct? Leebo ^T/C 17:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem, just a bit of a misunderstanding. A more specific page with regard to this is Wikipedia:How to fix cut and paste moves. Happy editing! Leebo ^T/C 17:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sicko

Well, actually, I don't really know anything about the film/documentary. I just reverted vandalism from the previous IP who blanked the page. Sorry. Peace. Spartan-James 23:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Same with me, I only fixed a formatting issue. But I might chime in on that discussion later, for now, I'll just suggest the proper venue for it (the talk page of the proposed target article) and fix the merge templates. Um, what about the Roman numeral in my user name? - Cyrus XIII 12:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC) [reply]

It's still not your decision to make. Had I previously participated in the discussion on talk page A, I would not have wanted to have my comments crossed out there and copied over to talk page B and you cannot expect other editors to not have similar reservations. - Cyrus XIII 17:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you'd like to resolve this, you may...

...stop lecturing me on my moral responsibilities.
...take a look at Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines (which should have been the obvious address), for the basic idea, that drastic changes to other people's talk page posts are off limits, no matter how good the intentions.
...post a note similar to mine on the top of the old discussion and - should you find it to be imperative - another one at the beginning of the new discussion.

Lastly a word of advise: Don't push too hard trying to prove to everyone that this controversy page needs to exist. It might annoy people or have them suspect bias towards the subject on your part. Neither would strengthen your position, obviously. - Cyrus XIII 17:22, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hold on, so the existence of an article you created (and on which you are by far the most active contributor)[6] proves the necessity of its existence? Well, good luck with convincing anyone with that kind of logic. - Cyrus XIII 17:33, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sicko controversies

Please do not remove information that has precise logical relevance to the Controversies over the film Sicko page. Specifically, film director Michael Moore's trip to Cuba, the treasury department probe therefrom, and Moore's relaxed position on the copying and sharing of his film (i.e. Sicko). Thankyou. smb 00:03, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The piracy and treasury probe are not essentially controversies but have to do with the history of the film. I don't see those matters being treated as a controversy -- a public argument -- but rather as simple episodes in the history, the way they are written. If there were some argument back and forth I'd feel differently. Feel free to rewrite those sections and actually describe a controversy rather than events. And don't put them at the top of the article. It amounts to vandalism and looks like a bad-faith edit. Noroton 00:08, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your definition of (essential) "controversy" is completely alien to me (and the Oxford English dictionary). This information is pertinent to the controversy page. Michael Moore's trip to Havana and the government investigation that resulted is controversial enough. So, too, Moore's relaxed attitude toward spreading the movie for free (on the provision no individual profits from his work). Underdeveloped or not, both sections belong in the Controversies over the film Sicko article. Improvement is ongoing. Nor can you disqualify them because they "have to do with the history of the film". Please take a few moments to examine and consider the Fahrenheit 9/11 controversy page. Everything that qualifies as controversial -- i.e. contentious; speech or act -- is included on that page. You expressed an intention, exactly one week ago, to "rewrite the [controversy] section and put it back in so that this Wikipedia article about a Michael Moore movie is like every other Wikipedia article about Michael Moore movie...". (03:47, 22 June 2007) You got your way (and then some), so what grounds have you now for objecting? Unless you can provide a clear and cohesive argument, both sections will inevitably be resorted. Thankyou. smb 02:03, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

wp:own on Sicko Controversies

Please let other editors make changes to the sicko controversy page that you created. Thank you. Turtlescrubber 19:44, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3RR on Sicko Controversies

Just to let you know you are in violation. Anyway, now you are asking for consensus after absolutely ignoring the thoughts of everyone else on that page the entire time. Yes, I will work with you on consensus but you cant keep reverting the work of every other editor on the page that you don't agree with. I would say that our collective patience is pretty much exhausted. Just please try to be more reasonable and open to change in the future. I posted wp:own not as an insult but because I honestly think you need to check it out. Turtlescrubber 19:55, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, you are way in violation of the 3rr.Turtlescrubber 19:57, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I am going to file a report unless you want to self-revert all your edits of the last hour. Turtlescrubber 20:40, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All of your edits. Not one. All. Just forget it. Turtlescrubber 20:57, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MULTI

Neat guideline! I've never noticed that one before. Wanted to drop you a quick note, though in response to this:

“

Cyrus, thank you so much for the link to Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Here's a section of it that you might want to consult: WP:MULTI. Noroton 02:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

”

(The content above is originally from User_talk:Cyrus_XIII#Please_take_a_look_at_Controversies_over_the_film_Sicko_and_comment_on_merge_proposal, and is included here for context. It may be most appropriate to continue the discussion there.)

While that is true, in the interest of being a bureaucratic fuck, I have to point out that there is such a thing as taking it too far. For example, much of the discussion of Ross Perot in a page on the 1992 Presidential election might have been applicable to his run in 1996, but it would NOT have been correct to bulk-move Talk page content. In particular, I interpret WP:MULTI to advocate consolidation of single issues onto one playing field—in the example I gave, the question of whether to include his given first name, Henry, might be appropriate to continue on a single page, rather than letting it forest fire its way onto Ross Perot, two different years' election pages, Reform Party, and dozens of other places whether he might be mentioned in passing. But bulk-moving all Talk page content concerning him from the 1992 page to the 1996 page would have been wildly inappropriate.

At any rate, I feel your change of that single section was appropriate. But, damn, that little blurb is all-encompassing and needs to be changed before it's cited as a rationale for destroying Talk page histories all over the 'pedia via mass-moves. Jouster (whisper) 22:29, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WT:NOT

I responded on WT:NOT; the situation is very complicated, but hopefully the summary and the suggestions are clear. For books, most of the real-world information (reception, analysis, etc) centers on the plot, so it can be hard to justify a subarticle for a plot when that's the essense of a novel (because subarticles on plot need real-world information). However, as I said on WP:NOT, if you can find enough real-world info to complement the lengthy plot summary, then the plot subarticle might be accepted. For real-world information, you should focus on finding plot analysis, authors' influences, and critical response. You can summarize these in the main article and go into more depth in the plot subarticle. Or, if there isn't enough real-world information to complement the plot summary, then a merge is the best option. I'm sorry if this is confusing; it's a complicated concept to explain. — Deckill er 22:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your !vote on school notability was ignored

Your !vote in favor of keeping the article Father Michael Goetz Secondary School at this AfD was ignored by a closing administrator who decided that your vote did not properly explain why the school was notable. While many people think that all schools are notable, we need to make specific claims that the specific school (or anything else you're !voting to keep) is notable. I strongly encourage you to review the requirements of Wikipedia:notability and to consider modifying the justification of your decision to keep an article in any future AfD, school or otherwise. If based on your review of Wikipedia policy and a particular article you feel that the school is indeed notable, a variation of the text "Keep because notability is demonstrated by citation to multiple reliable sources that discuss the subject significantly", (as suggested here), will clearly state why you feel that the article meets Wikipedia's notability requirements. If you do not properly support your vote, you take the risk that your participation will be ignored if the closing administrator so chooses, as has already happened to your vote at this AfD. If you feel that your !vote should not have been ignored, you may want to visit the deletion review to express your thoughts on the subject. Alansohn 17:54, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My Brain Hurts

Thanks for the challenging question at my RfA. I tried my best to answer it. Now I need aspirin. (I'm joking of course — it was a fair and good question. Well, half joking — my brain really does hurt!) See you around! -- But|seriously|folks 06:28, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Father Goetz and School Deletion

Hi Alansohn,

Thank you for alerting me to the deletion review. I was really shocked at the way the discussion was closed. I've redone the Goetz school article on my user pages and made some other comments at the bottom of the deletion-review discussion. I'm asking editors to comment on the changes I've made because they represent a new development, one I think we can form a pretty wide consensus around. I think the article as I've redone it meets the objections of many editors, and it certainly meets WP:V. Please take a look, but I think this deletion review will close today or early tomorrow, so please don't delay, act now and take advantage of this limited-time offer! Noroton 17:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't quite say that the original Father Goetz article as it existed when the AfD was started was one of Wikipedia's best, but the manner in which consensus was disregarded in an exclusively one-sided manner is what disturbs me most, and should offend any other Wikipedia editor. The responses that you, I and other editors have posted to the DRV make it clear that this article was deleted improperly. In an astoundingly uncivil effort at retaliation (see here), User:Husond disclosed that he has been involved in school AfDs in the past, has a rather clear bias on the issue, and has a longstanding grudge with my "obsessively inclusionist" efforts to improve school articles to satisfy notability requirements and pass the AfD process. It was at best improper to be involved with a subject where he has a clear conflict of interest, let alone to violate consensus and Wikipedia policy so flagrantly. I will support your efforts to improve the article and to use your version as a compromise. Remember that there is no obstacle to recreation of an improved article that better meets standards, even if the DRV fails. As I have already stated, we need to educate those participating in these school AfDs that if they fail to state that the article meets Wikipedia standards under the Wikipedia:Notability policy (which they should review and be very familiar with), that they risk having their !votes disregarded as has already happened. The other necessary effort is to keep on improving these articles. We are part of a small group of people willing to put in the time and effort to research these schools and add properly sourced material to establish notability. This is often a remarkably simple effort for almost all high schools, as we have both shown with many, many articles. Let's keep up, and expand, the effort and ensure that we can build a clear majority consensus on school notability. Alansohn 17:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Father Michael Goetz Secondary School

I am very swamped at work right now, so I'll make a few quick observations:

Your revision of the article is excellent. Even if the AfD is not overturned on Deletion Review, policy does not prohibit adding a new article on the same subject if the new article addresses the objections that caused the deletion of the original article. On that basis, I think you are perfectly free to create a new article with the one you have written.
I agree that WP:V overrides consensus but I think User:Butseriouslyfolks's reading of WP:V is more expansive than required. The policy is somewhat internally inconsistent but the following sentence from the policy summarizes what I believe is historically the position that most take (the bold text is bolded in the policy as well): Material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, which should be cited in the article. Generally, if a non-controversial article about an otherwise notable subject, but lacking sources, is put on AfD, rarely do editors even argue WP:V if it is relatively clear that with a few minutes research someone could add sources. Although the policy talks about the burden of proof being on the person adding the material, the policy has always talked about an article being "verifiable", not "verified". I applaud the continuing trend to cite sources but when I started on Wikipedia it was rare that an article contained any citations and sources, if any, were often appended like a bibliographical entry at the end of the article. Two years ago, I would routinely research and create articles that were 100% verifiable but contained no sources. See Ladd Arboretum and Edwin Eisendrath as two examples. Yet, I would be surprised if either one would lose an AfD as failing WP:V. If we use the logic that an article automatically fails WP:N (via WP:V) simply because it lacks sources, we would end up deleting thousands of well-written articles on notable and verifiable subjects that merely need someone to take the time to provide sources. What a waste that would be. I don't believe most people read the policy that way, fortunately.

I view consensus as one of the most central facets of Wikipedia and when it comes to using policy to overrule consensus, I clearly fall in the strict constructionist category. -- DS1953 ^talk 17:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I find that the WP:V reading is particularly harsh for high schools outside the United States and especially those in non-English speaking countries. Sources are often much more difficult for an editor to locate if the media coverage is principally in Chinese, Japanese, Spanish, etc... -- DS1953 ^talk 18:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re. Please take another look at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 July 5

Hello Noroton. Please don't be angry at my actions at the Goetz school closing, anger is the most counterproductive human tool. This said, I naturally did not close that AfD out of anger. But I found that the "all schools are inherently notable" argument is being increasingly present in those discussions and I thought that it could be productive to send a signal to users pasting it around that they should provide better reasoning based on policies and guidelines, and that the "all schools are inherently notable" won't guarantee that the school articles are going to be kept.
I have just noticed your comment today about me not acting in good faith. I would like to ask you to please be more careful when making such accusations. E.g. you stated that "it certainly would have been more prudent for him to avoid closing discussions involving Alansohn after delivering such a personal criticism of Alansohn, and certainly to close it in such an extraordinary way" without verifying that my comment on Alansohn's user conduct RFC was made after I closed the AFD and not the other way around. I am very familiar with the five pillars, particularly the fourth. Please consider using a less abrasive language towards me. Your anger is far too evident in your comments at the DRV and there's really no justification for it. We should be here to calmly discuss any differences, not to hurl rocks at those differences. Please WP:AGF. Thank you for wishing me a good vacation. :-) Regards, Húsönd 18:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, if you are welcome to create an article about this school as long as notability is asserted and sourced. If you do, you can naturally disregard the result of the DRV because the discussion there refers to the article as it was when the AFD nomination took place. A new and improved article does not equal to recreation. Regards, Húsönd 18:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I highly doubt that your stern (which I call "abrasive") tone will result in a pleasant and productive discussion. I concede that my closure of this AFD was indeed on the borderline of a WP:POINT violation, but I do not agree that it's such a blatant and worrisome trespass. Way too much drama, if you allow me to be frank. I've already explained my reasons, you should let it go now. Again, please do not ignore my requests to assume good faith. Regards, Húsönd 18:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the same subject, I just weighed in on the DR page with a third way forward. Please note my clarification just above TerriersFan's proposed way forward. Thanks for improving the article, which is the most important aspect of this whole debate. -- But|seriously|folks 18:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's ok. I'm having trouble keeping my head around all of it myself. I agree that WP:N does not trump consensus. I agree that if an article is sourced, "article shows subject is notable" !votes are perfectly valid and, if they constitute consensus, they prevail. This is so regardless of the quality or nature of the sources. If, however, there are no sources whatsoever, WP:N cannot be satisfied, no matter how many editors believe it is, because of the requirements of WP:V. Therefore, such a consensus could be overridden by WP:V. Do you understand my reasoning? If so, does it make any sense? -- But|seriously|folks 19:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You just figured out how to say it succintly: "Consensus can't save no-source articles." I think that's the heart of what I was trying to say.-- But|seriously|folks 20:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aha! Now I see what you both are now saying, but understanding it doesn't mean it is right. Taken to its logical conclusion, no discussion on AfD can ever save a "no-source" article because you read WP:V as meaning no article can be verifiable if it has no sources. But if that is the case, why do we ever need AfD for an unsourced article? Why don't the CSD instructions, which are very specific, say "Delete unsourced articles on sight?" -- DS1953 ^talk 20:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose as a practical matter the prod and AfD processes give others an opportunity to add sources without causing any harm in the interim. An unsourced article is certainly less harmful than a copyvio or random nonsense. I'm not sure whether that was done intentional or we're just finding out about a gap in the policies. If you search WP with google for "without sources" and "deleted" (or "without sources" and "do not"), you'll find prior discussions about the same issues. -- But|seriously|folks 01:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, FYI, DS1953 spent a lot of time researching this policy issue and found a lot of prior discussion, including Wikipedia:Speedy deletion criterion for unsourced articles and Wikipedia:Proposed deletion process for unsourced articles. The bottom line is that my interpretation of WP:V does not currently have consensus, so we should not use it. More discussion at my and DS1953's talk pages. Take care! -- But|seriously|folks 05:23, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Goetz

It's already moot, the DRV has been closed but there seems to be a new article. >Radiant< 08:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ridgefield or not...

Hi. Thanks for your detailed response over there. I suppose I should let it sit and see if others respond. Meanwhile, though we don't agree so much on the reasoning (pts 1-5), it does sound like we/you might craft a compromise in line with the sixth point. Perhaps you could propose a revision of this: "Robert Fitzgerald, the {author/translator}, and his wife Sally called Ridgefield home, though legally their property is located in neighboring Redding." Thanks. HG | Talk 02:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More on the talk page now, fyi. I'm trying not to get drawn into the process distraction, just on the content. HG | Talk 06:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: History of Norwalk Edit

Regarding the diff you sent me claiming I removed a footnote from the section of a colonial travel's account of a night in town...I can't figure out what you're talking about...in the diff you sent me, the footnote is still there, I removed the sentence: "A loud group of men "came rumbling upstairs to go to bed in the next room", tipsy or drunk, he supposed. The next morning he traveled further west" because I believe that a loud group of drunk men coming up the stairs is non-notable in Norwalk's history. TJ0513 01:42, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the sentence I removed...I don't think it really added anything. The other stuff was good because it was descriptive about the town itself, for instance that there were native americans around or that slaves were not in use, etc. The whole thing is a little more narrative than otherwise might appear in an encyclopedia, but I think for now it's ok, and it gives an "image" of the town. I thought the part about drunk men coming up the stairs was superfluous, and so I removed it. If you have another opinion let me know. Cheers! TJ0513 03:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Noroton. Thank you so much for offering to help. Literally everything I've been putting up has been coming from a book: "Being an Historical Account of That Connecticut Town" by Deborah Ray and Gloria Stewart. I don't have page number citations, unfortunately, this is just from notes I've taken. Perhaps one big citation at the end? I'd probably be OK with however you'd think it best to handle it. But I agree, we should cite sources (and even provide venue for further reading). By the way, I've taken notes from another book (the name escapes me) which in particular focuses on colonial times (the 1600/1700s) in Connecticut (including sections specific to Norwalk) and I haven't visited them recently but maybe I'll dig through them again this weekend and see if I can beef up the colonial section, which is something I've always meant to be do... TJ0513 03:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Noroton...maybe we should take a step back and talk about the overall citation structure. I've seen other articles with a bibliography section at the end...given that much of what I'm adding is from a single source, perhaps this format would be a more concise way to handle the citations rather than many many footnotes mostly all saying the same thing, anyway (or with a hundred "ibid"s)... TJ0513 13:39, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just got your message

Oh man, I just got your message and I'm sorry but I'm not going to be able to get through all of CT. I've just managed to take care of Fairfield Co. I'll try to get to the rest of it tomorrow. No more content disputes on CT articles!! BSF, thanks for the kind note and I'll see you around the school debates! -- But|seriously|folks 02:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I picked Fairfield out at random. How weird is that? Good luck! -- But|seriously|folks 03:35, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please be cooperative

Noroton, please stop this. The 19:26 and 19:28 edits are obviously not reverts. There was a discussion and my good faith interpretation is there there is a very clear consensus. No one is trying to take the content away, just move it to where the involved editors believe it's most appropriate. Please try to cooperate with the community. Threatening comments on talk pages are completely unwelcome. Cmprince 03:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, now you really have violated 3RR. From the policy, you may want to pay attention to this excerpt:

If you seem to be the only person who feels that the article should be the way that you have made it, perhaps it is better the way everyone else thinks it should be.

I obviously don't intend to revert this, but I hope you'll change it back yourself. I don't plan to report this violation, but if someone else does revert and you decide to re-revert, I don't think there will be much other choice since you don't seem interested in working with the community. Cmprince 04:10, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fairfield County, Connecticut

Noroton,

I've agreed with you in the past, you know that. But I think your strength is better saved for other fights than this one, which is not going to be supported by anyone living in Fairfield, anyone wanting to do business in Fairfield, anyone promoting Fairfield, and anyone who randomly looks up a county in Connecticut and discovers that the entirety of its history consists of its Klan presence.

Your work, which is great, will still be visible in the page history. As more history gets added, a section of that size may eventually become appropriate. As it stands now, the length of that section is WP:UNDUE. Note that WP:UNDUE gives you specific discretion to create a "Klan in Fairfield County" page, and that it reinforces what I said earlier—if the history section expands, the expanded Klan section can be reinserted alongside it.

Just a note from an old friend; do with it what you will.

Jouster (whisper) 15:27, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reboot

Hello again, Noroton. I don't think we got off on the right foot last night, so let's try this again from the beginning... I usually don't like it when people refer to "consensus" without getting agreement on the page that such exists, but that's exactly what I did last night. I do think there is consensus, but it's not very fair to declare it and make immediate changes, and so for that I apologize. I see that you feel strongly about this, so I expect that we're both working to the same goal of making a great article. The article content is still being debated, but it's been in its current state for a while, so leaving it a little while longer won't hurt anyone while we talk about it on the talk page. I hope at the same time, though, you'll be willing to listen to the concerns of the other editors and be willing to accept some level of changes to the article content. So if you don't mind, let's forget yesterday and move forward, and hopefully we can come up with something everyone will dislike just a little bit less... Cmprince 15:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

got there before you got to me

(Les Mis)DGG (talk) 04:17, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plot of Les Misérables

More interesting issues: Should WP:NOT override consensus? Are WP:IAR !votes as valid as !votes based on other policies? Is WP:ILIKEIT a subset of WP:IAR and therefore an equally valid position? In any event, I don't see a consensus to delete, so I said overturn. And no, I didn't get through the whole essay. I now have images to delete! Later. -- But|seriously|folks 05:47, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]