Black Kite (talk | contribs) rationale |
Black Kite (talk | contribs) →Blocked: rationale |
||
Line 149: | Line 149: | ||
==Blocked== |
==Blocked== |
||
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=400123543 This] edit is unacceptable - I'm pretty sure that you don't need me to explain why a wikilink comparing other editors to Nazis isn't welcome here. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (t)]] [[Special:Contributions/Black_Kite|(c)]] 14:28, 2 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
<div class="user-block" style="min-height: 40px"> [[Image:Stop x nuvola with clock.svg|40px|left|alt=|link=]] You have been '''[[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked]]''' from editing for a period of '''24 hours''' for [[Wikipedia:Disruptive editing|abuse of editing privileges]]. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to [[Wikipedia:Five pillars|make useful contributions]]. If you would like to be unblocked, you may [[Wikipedia:Appealing a block|appeal this block]] by adding the text <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "tlx" argument. -->{{tlx|unblock|2=reason=''Your reason here ~~~~''}} below this notice, but you should read the [[Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks|guide to appealing blocks]] first. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (t)]] [[Special:Contributions/Black_Kite|(c)]] 14:26, 2 December 2010 (UTC)</div><!-- Template:uw-block --> |
<div class="user-block" style="min-height: 40px"> [[Image:Stop x nuvola with clock.svg|40px|left|alt=|link=]] You have been '''[[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked]]''' from editing for a period of '''24 hours''' for [[Wikipedia:Disruptive editing|abuse of editing privileges]]. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to [[Wikipedia:Five pillars|make useful contributions]]. If you would like to be unblocked, you may [[Wikipedia:Appealing a block|appeal this block]] by adding the text <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "tlx" argument. -->{{tlx|unblock|2=reason=''Your reason here ~~~~''}} below this notice, but you should read the [[Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks|guide to appealing blocks]] first. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (t)]] [[Special:Contributions/Black_Kite|(c)]] 14:26, 2 December 2010 (UTC)</div><!-- Template:uw-block --> |
Revision as of 14:28, 2 December 2010
Thought you might like to see that I changed my vote on this one: [1] You were right, my reasoning made no sense. Thanks for pointing it out. Robofish (talk) 12:37, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
- Well said. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:43, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Question
I know we've been bumping heads lately, but I have a question. Rather than going to one of the noticeboards, I thought I'd try to get you to clear things up. Aircraft design process is nominated for deletion. You moved that article to Aircraft design during the deletion discussion. You then started a new article at Aircraft design process. Which article is being debated at the AfD? Is it Aircraft design where the tag currently is or is it Aircraft design process which is the name of the original article? This is quite confusing. AniMate 06:44, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Both titles are under discussion there and the history of the matter is explained though, if you're coming to it late, the discussion may seem too long, alas. It is not unusual for multiple article titles to be bundled together. I'll check the links and presentation to see if this can be made clearer. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:58, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- Hey Colonel, you and I have disagreed plenty in AfD discussions, and if I dig deeply enough I can find an AfD where, if I am not mistaken, you moved or renamed an article (some theological thing) under discussion (but not with the results of the Aircraft affair, fortunately). I didn't see the ANI discussion until just now, but I wanted to tell you that I think this was a good answer. Happy editing, Drmies (talk) 17:29, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- That earlier case was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Epistemics of Divine Reality (2nd nomination). That move was reverted by DGG and the blue link I had created, which was certainly a notable topic, was deleted. That reversion and deletion was disruptive in the proper sense of the wiki-concept: "disrupting progress toward improving an article". The precedents are now clear and I may return to the matter but not right now as I have a dinner engagement... Colonel Warden (talk) 18:10, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
CW, After Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grove Avenue, London was closed, I moved the article to Hanwell Park. It could do with some of your attention from the sources you say you have, if you'd be so kind? Thanks, Bigger digger (talk) 11:27, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
I observed your edits following the AFD. I applaud your initiative but thought it best to leave you to it as I had had a good run at the topic. If you have now run dry then we can perhaps wait upon another editor to take it forward. Myself, I have been working on adjacent articles which have been suggested by consideration of the same sources, such as Cuckoo Schools. There is much to be said about the area and I find it best to let the work develop slowly and steadily as one reads around the topic(s). If one tries to force the pace, then one may overreach. See WP:DEADLINE. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:33, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- I don't have / can't find the sources to define what Hanwell Park actually was/is, whilst you mentioned you had the London Encyclopedia or somesuch tome, which would probably help with this matter. I get a bit antsy when I leave an article which, even if short, doesn't do a decent job of at least defining its content, which I feel is the case here. But no worries, if you have other things to be getting on with I shall leave you to your cuckoos, aircraft and whatever other oddments you have come across! Bigger digger (talk) 15:58, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks, it seems I am under attack by the Admin force of Wikipedia, well actually just a few of them. I am obviously stupid because I am not an admin. Tofutwitch11-Chat -How'd I do? 20:03, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- You're welcome. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:22, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Please be aware that footnotes are expected. Thanks, Ironholds (talk) 04:21, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- That is a low priority - work for gnomes. It is more important to settle the fact of the article's existence, its title and scope. Several of my followers are now in attendance and I have flagged it for a couple of projects. Many hands make light work...
- Colonel Warden (talk) 08:41, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Keith Coster
Colonel Warden, I've been working through unreferenced BLPs, and ran across the article on Keith Coster. Do you think being a recipient of the OBE makes him notable? I know little about it. --Nuujinn (talk) 20:30, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
- Being commander of a national army seems to be an even bigger deal. I have added a citation. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:29, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Illegal immigration in India
I have somewhat enhanced the article Illegal immigration in India. Please review and comment on the talk page if the NPOV banner can be removed.
Thanks --Iball (talk) 16:34, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
- Remind me, please, as I have no recollection of this topic. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:55, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Explain yourself.
Please give me a good, reasonable explanation why this was a remotely good idea, in light of everything else that has happened over the last week or two. Jclemens (talk) 18:58, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
- You have now been blocked indefinitely for disruptive editing. I expect that my post at WP:ANI#Colonel Warden blocked should give you insight into both my reasoning and the community's reactions. I'm truly sorry it's come to this. Jclemens (talk) 23:25, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Jclemens (talk) 00:24, 23 November 2010 (UTC)- Your reaction seems puzzling. The article was tagged for reference improvement. In the edit in question, I added a couple of citations to encyclopedic sources and, in the past, would have regarded this as sufficient reason to remove the cleanup tags. In the light of recent warnings, it seemed more prudent to retain the tags so that the corresponding categories remained. But the top of the article was getting cluttered with too many large banner tags so I moved the ones which had been addressed to some extent down to the foot of the article, placing them in the References section, which seemed an appropriate place for them. This does not seem disruptive as I was improving the article in good faith.
- Note also that I have placed numerous citations of other good and relevant sources in the corresponding AFD discussion. Today, I was browsing for some more sources and found some more good ones such as this article in The Times. I have not yet found time to do some major editing of the article but was preparing the ground as I seem to be the only editor who is exerting himself in support of this notable topic. But, as I have already found and cited 7 sources on top of the 35 citations which the article already contained, why is this not sufficient? Just how many sources have to be added before you will permit a tag to be touched?
- Colonel Warden (talk) 00:29, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
- In this particular case, the problem was not with the quantity of the sources, but with their quality. Almost all of the citations are from non-reliable sources, like websites that are promoting their own products and agenda (i.e. residentialsolarpanels.org, greenfloors.com, greenconcepts.com, greenrestaurants.org, indigogreenstore.com, mrtakeoutbags.com, etc). There are a few sources that are reliable, but the majority of the text in the article is supported by unreliable sources. This should be obvious to anyone who is as experienced as you are on Wikipedia. The fact that it is not obvious to you is likely the cause of the problem which the proposed topic ban would resolve. SnottyWong comment 01:03, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
- The 8 sources which I have identified so far all seem quite satisfactory. Colonel Warden (talk) 01:15, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
- You still don't seem to understand the purpose of cleanup tags. The majority of the material that is currently in the article is based on unreliable sources. This is what the {{refimprove}} cleanup tag is intended to point out. The fact that you pointed out valid sources in a deletion discussion doesn't change the fact that the article needs cleanup. You only added two sources to the actual article, and the only content they purport to verify is the lead. Do you truly believe that the sourcing in the article, as it currently stands, does not require a very major cleanup? SnottyWong converse 03:10, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
- (ec) Do you understand that WP:TC specifies that tags are to be placed at the top of an article? Is there some mystery consensus for article-wide tags to be placed on the bottom of an article which I'm otherwise unaware?
- No, I have never heard of WP:TC. Colonel Warden (talk) 01:15, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
- Allow me to refresh your memory: you commented on the talk page in 2008. Hmm. The version of that page at the time you wrote your comment on the corresponding talk page specified that tags go at the top of the page. Has your opinion of cleanup templates changed since you wrote that edit? Jclemens (talk) 01:26, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
- I don't recall the details of that occasion. The shortcut WP:TC is not familiar to me nor are all its details. I suppose I was responding to some centralised discussion on a particular point, as I sometimes do. The most recent discussion on this general issue that I attended was at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Maintenance tags. There seemed to be a developing consensus there that maintenance tags should be less intrusive and I endorsed JzG's proposal which seemed quite sensible. I've seen other discussions like that at Village Pump but find them quite hard to find again once they are buried in the archives. My general impression is that there is a fair amount of dissatisfaction with large banner tags, such as can be seen at that discussion. And now I must really go to bed before the orange light flickers again. :) Colonel Warden (talk) 01:43, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
- Ignorance is no excuse. If you're not aware of the relevant guidelines and consensus regarding cleanup tags, then why would you delete/move them? I find it hard to AGF that an editor with 20,463 edits has never heard of WP:TC (despite having had a discussion on its talk page in the past), especially considering that you are particularly well-versed in almost every other policy/guideline/essay that exists. SnottyWong confer 03:22, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
- a random 2 cents, i've never heard of WP:TC, though there's lot of things i never look up. i do see articles in my sourcing work sometimes which have tags below the top of the article (usually down in the poor/empty reference section) and never move them up to the top.--Milowent • talkblp-r 03:53, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
- Allow me to refresh your memory: you commented on the talk page in 2008. Hmm. The version of that page at the time you wrote your comment on the corresponding talk page specified that tags go at the top of the page. Has your opinion of cleanup templates changed since you wrote that edit? Jclemens (talk) 01:26, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
- No, I have never heard of WP:TC. Colonel Warden (talk) 01:15, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
- In this particular case, the problem was not with the quantity of the sources, but with their quality. Almost all of the citations are from non-reliable sources, like websites that are promoting their own products and agenda (i.e. residentialsolarpanels.org, greenfloors.com, greenconcepts.com, greenrestaurants.org, indigogreenstore.com, mrtakeoutbags.com, etc). There are a few sources that are reliable, but the majority of the text in the article is supported by unreliable sources. This should be obvious to anyone who is as experienced as you are on Wikipedia. The fact that it is not obvious to you is likely the cause of the problem which the proposed topic ban would resolve. SnottyWong comment 01:03, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
- What, if anything, would you like copied into the ANI thread as your response? Jclemens (talk) 01:04, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
- You seem to be my antagonist rather than my interlocutor. It is therefore not proper that you represent me. It is, in any case, simpler if I speak for myself. Interested parties can read my comments here, I suppose.
- I'm going to bed now. Good night. Colonel Warden (talk) 01:15, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
- I'd be more than willing to post anything you wish into the AN/I thread. I'll also unblock you, if the community is willing to allow it. Response seems divided at the moment, but perhaps a good word from you will sway them towards the positive end of things? I'll refrain from posting in the thread in the meantime. BOZ (talk) 03:07, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you for your interest. Here's a point which has not yet been made. The last incident at ANI was about a move/split of an article. In this new case of Green restaurants, I suggested in the discussion that the article be moved and invited comment. My words were:
- "The article title would be better as Green restaurant per WP:SINGULAR. Any objections if I move it, as part of the process of clean up and improvement?"
- This demonstrates that I sought consensus over this minor matter of an editing move in order to be compliant with the discontent expressed in the previous discussion. This matter of relocating tags within the article seems to be a new issue. If editors are going to make a federal case out of it then I shall likewise observe restraint and seek consensus for such action. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:27, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
- This has already been brought up at the ANI thread. The ANI thread is about your behavior with respect to cleanup tags, not with moving articles during AfD. SnottyWong babble 15:49, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
- A further point which seems relevant is that the page WP:TC, which seems to be the basis for this action, is not stated to be policy or even a guideline. It therefore has no particular standing which should cause editors to treat it as law. The page was not mentioned in the previous ANI discussion nor do I recall anyone ever making a big deal about this before. I cannot be expected to anticipate new concerns of this kind when they come out of the blue like this and there is no reasonable warning. My editing actions are often intended to make substantial improvements to articles in the spirit of WP:BOLD and WP:HEY. WP:BOLD is an official guideline and I had supposed it to be well established. The improvement templates, which WP:TC discusses, are invitations to be bold and WP:TC states, "editors should work to fix the problem as quickly and cleanly as possible so the template message can be removed". Removal of the templates is therefore expected in such cases and it does not seem reasonable to complain when articles are improved and the templates are adjusted as a consequence. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:27, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
- If you need a guideline, try Wikipedia:Manual of Style (article message boxes), which spells it out quite clearly. Surely you've heard of the Manual of Style? And, WP:BOLD has nothing to do with it. Removing or marginalizing cleanup tags is not "improvement". Actually addressing the issues that the cleanup tag is pointing out is improvement. SnottyWong babble 15:49, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
- A further point is about WP:DISRUPTION. This is another official guideline and defines the issue to be "disrupting progress toward improving an article". My actions were, in this case, directly intended to improve the article in question. I added two reasonable citations of Bruce E. Johansen (2009), The Encyclopedia of Global Warming Science and Technology, vol. 1 and Leslie A. Duram (2010), Encyclopedia of Organic, Sustainable, and Local Food. These works seemed to be better sources than what was there before and were a token of the further work to be expected. I went on to list more sources of a scholarly kind in discussion and this demonstrates my good faith in bringing forward reasonable improvements. As these actions were of an improving nature, I fail to see how they can be characterised as disruption. The editors who oppose my actions do not seem to want improvements made. Why is this opposition not characterised as disruption, as it seems to disrupt progress towards improvement of articles? It is hard to understand the reasoning here. Are we expected to sit on our hands when there is work to be done? Colonel Warden (talk) 08:27, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
- No one is chastising you for adding sources to an article, so there is no need to bring up this red herring. Again, deleting/moving cleanup tags is not improvement. When you perform actions that are in direct conflict with the MOS (after being warned multiple times), then you are being disruptive. SnottyWong babble 15:49, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
- A further point concerns the role of User:Jclemens. He has been soliciting complaints and hosting personal attacks against me on his talk page. For example, see User talk:Jclemens#Alan Cook in which it was suggested that I had engaged in outright fraud in the article Alan Cook. This was an absurd accusation which not true in any way and so the vexatious complaint was withdrawn. User:Jclemens did not reprove the opposing editor for failing to assume good faith, which is again another official guideline. User:Jclemens seems to be over-reacting by enforcing a non-guideline while soliciting and indulging breaches of our official behavioural guidelines. He therefore does not seem impartial and, instead, seems determined to impose one-sided and draconian sanctions which are out of all proportion to the supposed offense. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:27, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
- If anything, Jclemens has given you more chances than he should have. He gave you warning after warning, and all you did was ignore them. And, this isn't about Jclemens. If you've read the ANI thread, then you've seen that there are quite a few more editors that have endorsed the block and agree with his take of the situation. SnottyWong babble 15:49, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
- So, in summary, my behaviour has been intended to be restrained, responsive and directed towards improvement of this and other articles. It seems sad that my good faith should so readily be questioned and that I should be prevented from making further improvements.
- Colonel Warden (talk) 08:27, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
- Did you want me to add this response to the AN/I thread? If so, I'm assuming you'd want me to take from "Here's a point which..." and on. I want to make sure this is your intention, rather than assuming what you wanted and making an ass out of myself. ;) BOZ (talk) 12:13, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
- No thanks, it is a long statement with multiple paragraphs and seems likely to confuse if it is cut/paste elsewhere by another editor. I suggest that you post your own statement and views of the matter at WP:ANI#Reviews from uninvolved users. If there is any particular detail above which seems important to you then you might quote it with a link to the full statement. BTW, while we talk, is your account name a reference to Boz? I started an article on Dickens' London and you may be interested. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:44, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
- I'll keep out of this one for now, although I'll keep an eye on it - seems kind of hostile in there. ;) "BOZ" is a spelling variant of my real name. :) BOZ (talk) 14:59, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
- That's a shame because we have had little interaction IIRC and so you properly fit the description of an "uninvolved user", as specified for that section. As it is, we have a parade of users there who have scores to settle. You may recall that User:Bali ultimate, for example, has recently been uncivil towards me, as detailed at User talk:Jclemens#Colonel Warden. Again, in this instance, our behavioural guideline was breached, but User:Jclemens chose to do nothing except advise me to "deal with it". Bali ultimate now turns up at ANI to harangue me again. He is clearly involved, would you not say? Colonel Warden (talk) 17:23, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
- There definitely is a loud chorus of "endorse block" from the crowd who are more likely to cry "delete" in an AFD, if that's what you mean, so no surprise there. Even without them, the respondents are pretty well split on what to do about you. I don't see this block sticking for long though, just in my opinion, and I don't think it was intended to be. You've got people yelling about "long-term disruption", however, and claims like that can sway uninvolved users into seeking a long-lasting block of some sort. I think the thing to do is to listen to the complaints, see if that requires any modification to your behavior, and then let the community decide how long the current block should last. If you keep butting heads with some of these people, they will eventually do an RFC/U (maybe much sooner than later), or maybe take you to ArbCom or try to get you banned at AN. I've seen it happen, and I know you've seen it too. Thinking you are right doesn't prevent others from judging you the other way; people like A Nobody, Asgardian, and Gavin.collins thought they were right, and look where they are now. I'd like to see you stick around, personally; we need more people who are willing to put the effort into fixing up borderline articles to counteract those who lazily request deletion rather than fixing the problem, and especially those who want to delete articles for their own personal reasons. BOZ (talk) 17:47, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
- Did you want me to add this response to the AN/I thread? If so, I'm assuming you'd want me to take from "Here's a point which..." and on. I want to make sure this is your intention, rather than assuming what you wanted and making an ass out of myself. ;) BOZ (talk) 12:13, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
- Colonel Warden (talk) 08:27, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Unblocked
You are being unblocked. Consensus at ANI is that an RFC/U is a better place to work out any particular sanctions. Again, I regret that it came to this, and that I was self-selected to be the bearer of news that your editing has consistently not been in accordance with community expectations. Please participate transparently in the forthcoming RFC/U; I think I shall skip it. Jclemens (talk) 18:32, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
- An RfC/U seems premature. I have responded to the incipient process at Response by Colonel Warden. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:09, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
you may note you were the only one to !vote keep. simply trying to argue on policy is going to address notability. LibStar (talk) 00:27, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- Your first sentence is counter-factual as multiple editors voted to keep. I do not understand what the second sentence means. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:47, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- how about trying to argue how something is notable instead of recycling your usual policy trumps guidelines and we should not be trying to harm Wikipedia argument. clearly the football player in question did not pass notability. LibStar (talk) 00:52, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- sorry 2 others voted keep but dream focus withdraw his keep vote. LibStar (talk) 00:57, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- Er... Anyone trying to do something constructive here, or are we just pointlessly arguing? LibStar, I'm sure it's thoughtful of you to point out that CW's vote was against the eventual consensus, and some of his arguments might have been weak, but having a go at him for this position won't change it.
- CW, I think some of your editing is odd, but I can see you also do a lot of positive work, so am happy to rub alongside you, but don't take the bait in circumstances like this, there must be articles requiring your attention withering while you're reading this..! ;-) Bigger digger (talk) 01:01, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- sorry 2 others voted keep but dream focus withdraw his keep vote. LibStar (talk) 00:57, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- my point is the constant recycling of the same old policy trumps notability argument. we have established criterion for notability. turning up and voting keep for the sake of it is not constructive. LibStar (talk) 01:08, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- I would have thought the way to address that would be to address his arguments, not berate him for being on the wrong side of consensus. For example, WP:PAPER is not relevant to that keep !vote as it is an argument about space. No-one was arguing that the article should have been deleted as it was taking up too much space, or that the article was too big, which is what WP:PAPER addresses. It explicitly states that this policy is not a free pass for inclusion: articles must abide by the appropriate content policies, particularly those covered in the five pillars. CW's use of it in this argument was therefore a red-herring, and despite pointing it out here, I am sure it has been mentioned before and will probably be used again. Anyway, enough from me. Bigger digger (talk) 01:31, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- No, it was not a red herring. My position was that there was a constructive alternative to deletion. This was to redirect the article to the list of Aston Villa players. This would have addressed the weak notability of the topic while preserving the edit history which seems likely to be needed in future as this player starts to play for the first team. He is currently the captain of the youth team, has been selected for the first team roster and so his future seems assured and is already documented by national newspapers. The counter-argument was that the list of players has been restricted to those with 100+ appearances. My response was that this was an arbitrary limit and that this is where WP:PAPER comes in - we have no need to limit such a list for reasons of size - we have lists with hundreds of thousands of entries. This logic still seems sound.
- As for our wasting time on this post mortem, you have a point but it applies to you too. My position is somewhat different in that I am currently the subject of numerous personal attacks on account of my editing of articles. This has always been intended to be constructive and to improve the articles but other editors dispute this. They seek to find fault with everything I do, examining every edit in minute detail to see how it may be criticised. It therefore seems safer to occupy myself with non-article work such as discussions about policy. This may indeed be less productive but so it goes...
- Colonel Warden (talk) 09:07, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- Ah, ok, got that a bit skeewhiff, I'll leave you in peace now. I just didn't think the way LibStar brought this to your page was appropriate. And I won't object to you editing Hanwell Park with the sources you have..! Cheers, Bigger digger (talk) 12:10, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- I was reading about the Zeigarnik effect recently. This is due to the anxiety which develops when a task is incomplete and so leads to the conclusion that the best way to finish some large task is to start it. It is interesting to observe that this effect seems so strong in you. This effect provides a good scientific basis for our editing policy which encourages us to create and nuture faltering starts. The countervailing sentiment that we should instead delete incomplete work, so that the task seems not to be started, is thus shown to be unscientific and demotivating. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:39, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- I would have thought the way to address that would be to address his arguments, not berate him for being on the wrong side of consensus. For example, WP:PAPER is not relevant to that keep !vote as it is an argument about space. No-one was arguing that the article should have been deleted as it was taking up too much space, or that the article was too big, which is what WP:PAPER addresses. It explicitly states that this policy is not a free pass for inclusion: articles must abide by the appropriate content policies, particularly those covered in the five pillars. CW's use of it in this argument was therefore a red-herring, and despite pointing it out here, I am sure it has been mentioned before and will probably be used again. Anyway, enough from me. Bigger digger (talk) 01:31, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- Ha, I "suffer" from that, it helps explain why I was good at exams: I never finished my revision! But I don't find that a compelling argument to keep articles that aren't notable, it's just an argument to keep the ropey ones, which I fully agree with. Now stop luring me back here... Bigger digger (talk) 13:06, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- I find it odd LibStar is criticizing you for voting against consensus in one article, when he has done that many times before, even renominating the same articles again after he failed to get them deleted in his previous attempt. And this seems to be nonconstructive, just a personal attack against an editor he disagrees with. Seen that happen before. Dream Focus 14:55, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- I've just taken another look at this and now see the obvious solution for this case - merger into Aston Villa F.C. Reserves and Academy which already lists this person. I know little about this football club but seem to have no difficulty in finding a constructive solution which everyone else seems to have missed. The nominator's motto is So little done, so much to do. How true. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:01, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
You may wish to participate
User:Wuhwuzdat has made a very WP:Pointy deletion nomination of List of management consulting firms after two of his wholesale deletions of article content were reverted and explained here. Since you participated in the 1st AfD, I am notifying you of the 2nd AfD in the event you wish to participate. --Mike Cline (talk) 18:57, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks. I have responded in that discussion. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:03, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
I wonder why... you took it upon yourself to remove references to the situation in Australia and SA in the Wendy house article without removing the redirects or perhaps creating a new article? Silent Billy (talk) 01:12, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
- Good point. By coincidence, I was just reading of something similar in The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time. I have started a separate article at cubby-hole and arranged for other similar titles such as cubby house to point there. I'm also going to develop playhouse as an umbrella article for these plus treehouses and the like but am currently waiting for the redirect bot to sort out links following the needed move.Colonel Warden (talk) 06:43, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, I noticed that when taking stock but forgot it when chasing down all the different names. I have attended to it now, thanks. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:36, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Blocked
- This edit is unacceptable - I'm pretty sure that you don't need me to explain why a wikilink comparing other editors to Nazis isn't welcome here. Black Kite (t) (c) 14:28, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Black Kite (t) (c) 14:26, 2 December 2010 (UTC)