Jump to content

User talk:Cunard/Notes

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Notes

[edit]
  • On WP:OWN by Bishonen (talk · contribs) (quote slightly modified)

    I spy a bona fide reference to WP:OWN, that favorite policy of trolls and n00bs (along with WP:AGF), in their first posts. That's usually a sign of a lack of actual arguments, though I'm sure it's sometimes just laziness. To throw WP:OWN in the face of an experienced editor with a suggestion that they "may also read it", as if you were generously imparting a little-known Wikipedia stratagem, is merely a way to join battle. Bishonen | talk 23:25, 11 April 2011 (UTC).

  • On WP:CRYSTAL by Master of Puppets (talk · contribs) (AfD discussion):

    Notability cannot be established on the promise that an article will become notable after having a Wikipedia entry. Recursion is messy, and also unverifiable - article notability is extracted from the present, not the future (see here for more explanation).

  • Template:Talkquote
  • On userspace and MfD by Thumperward (talk · contribs) (MfD discussion):

    Precedent is pervasive, and has a psychological impact on future work. Removing an individual article on some minor Pokemon character does not positively impact the encyclopedia by any great degree, and yet it sends the message to future editors that we have a threshold for fictional content and policies which explain why. The same applies to MfDs of pointless stuff in userspace: they reinforce that userspace is a privilege rather than a right, is there for things which will help the encyclopedia, and should be used for that purpose and not relied upon for other things.

  • From User:Hurricanefan25/Occupy:

    Text

    • On college projects by SandyGeorgia (talk · contribs) (link):

      I'm glad you're finally responding ... what I'm finding is professors who don't engage talk, hence students who don't engage talk, hence frustrations in editing for students and established editors alike. I can't say this is all related to your students, since my watchlist is being hit by numerous class projects, and few of them notify in advance (a big chunk of wrong text just appears and I have to go buy sources and deal with it).

      The first thing students need to learn about Wikipedia is to engage on article and user talk, and if they don't do that, they're wasting their time (and more of mine on quite a few articles I watch and edit). Another problem is that several articles I watch/edit are being hit by more than one college class, which sets up a whole 'nother set of issues-- student groups working at odds with each other, and not following a MEDMOS structure, and neither group reading the talk pages. I can see one problem is that students have varying levels of ability, but I see a bigger problem is that they're taking on topics they aren't much familiar with on Wikipedia that they aren't much committed to, and the biggest problem is that we can't help 'em learn better writing, correct paraphrasing, correct use of sources, and Wikipedia policy if they don't engage on talk. I guess that's the very most frustrating part ... they put in a lot of text that basically has to be deleted (and I spent $34 yesterday to get a source only to find out most of that article needs to be deleted), and they don't even read or engage the article talk page to understand why.

      It would be most helpful if they were graded more on how much they engage, adapt, adjust text, learn, and less on the text they add, since in almost every case I've seen most text needs to be deleted because it is either poorly sourced or in the wrong article or from sources that don't even mention the article topic edited or plagiarized. And I'm finding lots of WP:NOTAFORUM rah-rah-I-like-what-you-wrote talk page entries going off on my watchlist (that sort of thing really belongs on user talk, not article talk, which is for improving articles and discussing sources). One group (not even sure if it's yours) worked in sandbox from almost wholly faulty sources, didn't notify on talk they were working in sandbox, and if they had notified, I could have guided them towards correct sourcing before they plopped in a lot of text from sandbox that had to be deleted. It's frustrating all 'round from where I'm sitting, since I've yet to see an article upgraded in ways that help our readers. I hope some of my suggestions will be of some use to you and your students

    • On the general notability guideline and subject notability guidelines:
    • Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 July 8#Rachel Starr:

      I also note that this is yet another PORN DRV where DRV has failed to give weight to PORNBIO. – Spartaz Humbug! 18:30, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

    • Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 July 19#Ellen Kennedy:

      The close in this case was based on two major factors: a belief that subject notability guidelines supplement but do not override the general notability guideline, and an interpretation of the keep comments in the AfD as providing evidence that the normal conditions for WP:NACTOR were not applicable to this particular case. The consensus of this DRV is that the former is an accurate understanding of community consensus on SNGs, and the latter is within Ironholds' discretion as closing admin. – RL0919 (talk) 04:01, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

    • Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 August 12#Kate Oxley:

      DRV has tended to find, of late, that the GNG trumps all SNGs. I like this: it feels right to me that there should be a simple test, and that inclusionists should not get to argue that meeting a SNG prevents deletion, and also that deletionists should not get to argue that failing a SNG leads to deletion. I'd like this simple and clear view to continue, which means I endorse the finding in this case. As I've said before, I think this means we can go around demoting the SNGs to essay status.—S Marshall T/C 11:13, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

    • Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 October 26#Romsey Town Rollerbillies:

      The clear consensus here is that this doesn't past the GNG and by clear precedent, DRV tends not to overturn deletions under a SNG if there is good evidence that a page fails the GNG anyway. This is consistent with the concept that SNGs are supposed to indicate areas where an article is likely to have sources instead of an excuse for them to exist without sources existing. The SNG for this sport appears to be in dispute in any case and there can be no doubt that deletion was in accordance with widespread meta-consensus on where the threshold for inclusion should be. – Spartaz Humbug! 03:36, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

    • Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 November 4#Rachel Starr:

      The consensus at DRV remains that the close was proper based on both the local consensus and general principles. That it is in tension with the subject notability guideline WP:PORNBIO reflects more negatively on the guideline than the close, though even a good guideline will have exceptions. Bringing this back to DRV is unlikely to achieve a different result unless more and better sources can be found. – Eluchil404 (talk) 23:07, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

    • Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 April 12#Bridgette B:

      Deletion endorsed. Although there are opinions presented that the subject meets the WP:PORNBIO guideline, under WP:GUIDES "occasional exceptions may apply" to guidelines and there is clearly a consensus that even if the subject met the guideline this AfD was a situation where an "occasional exception" clause was applicable, and that the original closure to delete was appropriate on that basis. – Rlendog (talk) 16:27, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

    • User's text Source
      Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor
    • Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive235#My page:

      One of the things that makes Wikipedia seem unfriendly to outsiders is that the use of plain English ("my page" or "our article" being shorthand for "the article about me, or the company I represent") triggers an immediate assumption of bad faith: the article subject must be claiming WP:OWNERSHIP of said article. Well, they may be, but probably they're just trying to communicate in plain English because they didn't realize that the "Wikipedia way" of referring to an article requires you use a bit of convoluted speech. "The article about me" is OK, "my article" will get you into trouble. 28bytes (talk) 20:25, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

    • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 157: a detailed AfD close
    • Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2013 January 29#File:Weirauch Family, namesake of Wirock, MN.jpg: "The result of the discussion was: keep. Assuming the information that it is a studio work is correct, then as a work-for-hire, the photo was published when it was given (or sold) by the photographer to the family, and the work is now PD. "
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cunard/Notes&oldid=1078385184"