User talk:Ad Orientem

	; Archives (Index) ;
	1; 2; 3; 4; 5; 6; 7; 8; 9; 10; 11; 12; 13; 14; 15; 16; 17; 18; 19; 20; 21; 22; 23; 24; 25; 26; 27; 28; 29;
	This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Ad Orientem (talk) is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

Welcome! Please read this before posting here.

I'm a part-timer, so bear with me if I don't get back to you instantly.
I am not an Admin. If you are looking for someone to help with an Admin related issue go here, or you can ask me for a referral.
If you are here because you think I made a mistake somewhere, YOU COULD BE RIGHT! I am not infallible and sometimes miss things or make a bad edit. It happens. Let's talk about it.
Please be polite and remember to assume good faith. Also check the potty language at the door. I don't talk to other people that way and I expect the same courtesy in return. Rude comments are likely to get you ignored.
While minor editing is fine, for the sake of continuity of records please don't delete comments on my talk page even if you later conclude you were wrong. If you want to retract a comment, just add a note or you can ~~strike out the text~~.

If you have questions comments or concerns feel free to drop me a line below. Please post new topics at the bottom of this page, and remember to sign your topic with ~~~~.Click here to start a new topic.

Usertalkpageheader Usertalkpageheader

Dorothy Kilgallen

Having read several biographies, I corrected her birth city to Chicago from New York City in the first section with her birth and death information. Her actual birth city was already listed in the content of her bio here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:FFC0:6:795C:58FB:D1EE:36B7 (talk) 22:07, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the corrections. I have self reverted the two edits. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:04, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RfC question

I read the RfC and I wonder if you could clarify -- why not just apply PROD? I assume PROD applies to any article; why not use the existing process? K.e.coffman (talk) 01:12, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the question. The answer is that PROD can be taken down without condition or explanation by anyone. There is no requirement to make any improvement or fix anything. And once the PROD comes down you are stuck with rolling the dice in AfD and hoping you will get people to actually respond to your nomination. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:16, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, makes sense. You are also right that participation at AfDs is very low; the article can linger for weeks, and the a single "keep" vote results in "no consensus". Wikipedia definitely does not need more low quality content. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:37, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I too am following the RfC closely and – while I'm very sympathetic to Ad Orientem's concern – I haven't voiced an opinion in favor (or against).

I think being a bit WP:BITEy is the biggest problem here. New editors should concentrate on creating articles that don't have to adhere to our strictest guidelines (ie. no BLPs), and we warn them about BLP concerns virtually every step of the way. Their only other option is to create non-BLP articles, and the suggested process would make that more difficult for them than it already is.

I take issue with the Wikipedia:There is no deadline crowd: WP:V does set a deadline (challenged information can and will be removed), but leaves the precise time of that deadline to editor discretion. Indeed, it's the lack of process toward the other end of the timeline of articles that are completely unsourced and are tagged as such (ie. claims are "challenged" to use WP:V lingo) that's disheartening. I have seen articles that are some 12 years old and have been tagged as lacking sources for more than 10 years! Surely by this time is it neither BITEy against anyone nor does it fall under WP:V's "editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references" when they have been warned about it a decade ago! I am shocked to find that we do not have a process for deleting old articles that consist of unreferenced, challenged, material in entirety.

I have tried to argue that by following the logic of WP:V, those articles can be deleted. Now, as correctly pointed out in the RFC, WP:V does not advocate deletion, but what it does advocate is removal of claims. If an article consists of unreferenced, challenged, claims only, removing those claims would lead to blanking the page. Wikipedia:Page blanking says that should blanking leave the article with no useful content, one should not blank the page but take it to WP:PROD directly. In effect, then, completely unreferenced articles that are old enough should be deleted via PROD. Unfortunately, when I've tried this people have completely missed the point and resorted to claiming that the article subject is notable and so it should not be deleted.

On that note, I don't agree with the views in the RfC at all that those who want to introduce new deletion processes are somehow WP:NOTHERE. Remember, this is what we started with when we did not have notability ("Do not delete anything that might in the future become an encyclopedia topic") and hoaxes, spam etc. allowed. Surely the people who have since then added the aforementioned to our set of deletion criteria improved the encyclopedia rather than doing the opposite.

(ping: K.e.coffman) – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:04, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I have added a qualifier under the 5th support comment to address the BITE concerns. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:23, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A cup of coffee for you!

Your "Requiring at Least One Reliable Source for All New Articles" proposal is the voice of reason. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:11, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, though I fear the proposal is not going to pass. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:24, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Admin de - sysop

Do let us in on the secret. 81.134.89.140 (talk) 00:25, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]