CvyvvZkmSUDowVf (talk | contribs) look at the articel |
Elen of the Roads (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 40: | Line 40: | ||
** I'd like to see more people patrolling so that the backlog articles don't simply fall through. — <small>[[User:Timneu22|Timneu22]] <span style="font-weight:bold;">·</span>  [[User talk:Timneu22|talk]]</small> 13:07, 9 February 2011 (UTC) |
** I'd like to see more people patrolling so that the backlog articles don't simply fall through. — <small>[[User:Timneu22|Timneu22]] <span style="font-weight:bold;">·</span>  [[User talk:Timneu22|talk]]</small> 13:07, 9 February 2011 (UTC) |
||
** '''Look at the article''': http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paco_Yunque&oldid=411571338; that's speedyable if it is about a person or a band. It's AfDable otherwise. If it's 6 minutes old or two years old, an article with that text ''has serious problems'' because there are no claims to significance. [[WP:BURDEN|IT'S NOT UP TO ME TO GO SEARCHING FOR EVERY CLAIM OF NOTABILITY FOR EVERY ARTICLE.]] — <small>[[User:Timneu22|Timneu22]] <span style="font-weight:bold;">·</span>  [[User talk:Timneu22|talk]]</small> 13:11, 9 February 2011 (UTC) |
** '''Look at the article''': http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paco_Yunque&oldid=411571338; that's speedyable if it is about a person or a band. It's AfDable otherwise. If it's 6 minutes old or two years old, an article with that text ''has serious problems'' because there are no claims to significance. [[WP:BURDEN|IT'S NOT UP TO ME TO GO SEARCHING FOR EVERY CLAIM OF NOTABILITY FOR EVERY ARTICLE.]] — <small>[[User:Timneu22|Timneu22]] <span style="font-weight:bold;">·</span>  [[User talk:Timneu22|talk]]</small> 13:11, 9 February 2011 (UTC) |
||
I would point out that the message at the top of Timneu22's talkpage probably encapsulates the problem. Not only is it hostile, it's incorrect. Articles that qualify for deletion under A7 do not require sources or to demonstrate notability, they are only required to assert significance. I had a major run-in with Timneu, culminating in him reporting me to ANI on 17 December [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive657#Poor_admin_conduct_of_User:Elen_of_the_Roads]. Here's the edit combining an attack on admins with a totally offensive description of a piece of content on the subject of a Hindu holy man (he called it 'a pile of shit' several times) [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion&diff=402861849&oldid=402860641]. For convenience, the whole discussion can be read [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion/Archive_40#Inability_of_admins_to_recognize_patent_nonsense here]. The mistake (thinking it was devoid of meaning) was perhaps understandable, the language directed at it was inexcusable and unwarranted. To this day, I do not believe Timneu thinks he did anything wrong. [[User:Elen of the Roads|Elen of the Roads]] ([[User talk:Elen of the Roads|talk]]) 13:14, 9 February 2011 (UTC) |
Revision as of 13:14, 9 February 2011
Foreign-language contributors
There is a useful set of templates, many of them bilingual, for people who contribute in foreign languages - e.g. {{contrib-ru1}}. They are listed at WP:PNT/T. If you're not sure of the language, Google Translate does a pretty good job of identifying them, given a sentence or two to check. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 17:22, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks. I've had to use my own for some time because I never could find WP:PNT/T. I looked for it and gave up long ago. Thanks again! — Timneu22 · talk 18:08, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
I need to ask you something
I warned NO1ze Graal for creating that advertising page. Did I do something wrong? — Preceding unsigned comment added by GrammarSpellingWatch (talk • contribs) 21:23, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
New Pages Patrol by User:Timneu22
Timneu22 (talk · contribs) regularly exhibits hasty and clumsy behavior when doing new pages patrol. He is not willing to discuss his requests for speedy deletions or nominations for deletion. He does not seem to research the material he nominates adequately. He has awarded himself a barnstar as a joke, "You play whack-a-mole with terrible new pages like no one I've ever seen! Awesome!" Requests to discuss his actions are met with deletion of the requests and comments such as "I'm simply not interested", "I'm not concerned about this one bit", "I just. Don't. Care" See User talk:Fred Bauder/Test for more detail. User:Fred Bauder Talk 23:19, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- This sounds like the type of behavior that is currently causing Wikipedia's new editor rate to plummet. At the very least, Timneu22 should be willing to reply to concerns raised in good faith. Tagging articles for deletion should not be a casual affair ("playing whack-a-mole"), but approached with thoughtful consideration. Kaldari (talk) 00:22, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- Your request for comment here is just nonsense. I'm not clumsy when I patrol pages, and I'm rarely hasty. I patrol thousands of pages, and if I get one wrong out of every 200, well that's a pretty good record. The complaints are not any more frequent than that, I can tell you. And you know why I just. Don't. Care.? Because the discussion on my talk page was about a speedy tag that I applied — correctly — about 9 months ago. I don't care about something that old. — Timneu22 · talk 00:32, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- I think his job done in the last two days was quite good, almost every article tagged for speedy deletion was deleted. Unfortunately I cannot say the same for the January contributions because you nominated for speedy deletion a few articles that didn't got deleted at all. Just keep on doing like you have done recently and do not get too aggressive with TW. ---Neo139 (talk) 01:42, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- Making mistakes is one thing ... I've made a few as an NP patroller and admin. No one is perfect.
The real issue is not that you made them, it's how you've reacted when those mistakes are called to your attention. It doesn't matter whether it was nine months ago or today. Most human beings have a right to expect something better than "I. Don't. Care", whether they're new editors here or your fellow NP patrollers. Is it so hard to say you're sorry? Just once? Daniel Case (talk) 03:20, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- Dan, it seems that Timneu believes that by archiving all the previous complaints, they are 'out of sight, out of mind'. The greatest problem for him with his 'I don't care' attitude, is that he has put his maturity in question, has demonstrated little concern for community spirit, and is now losing the respect of fellow Wikipedians, and their confidence that he is capable of carrying out reasonably accurate work. Kudpung (talk) 05:02, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- Wrong, wrong, and more wrong. I keep my talk page clean by, well, clearing it. Community spirit? I'm all over the place asking people's opinions. Losing respect of users I've never heard of, who are suddenly on my talk page? You can't honestly take a look at my work as a whole and say I cannot carry out accurate work. That's just absurd. Again, if I get 0.5% of my pages wrong, so be it. I call them as I see them, and I move on. And I certainly don't dwell on some page from May of 2010. — Timneu22 · talk 11:34, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- Dan, it seems that Timneu believes that by archiving all the previous complaints, they are 'out of sight, out of mind'. The greatest problem for him with his 'I don't care' attitude, is that he has put his maturity in question, has demonstrated little concern for community spirit, and is now losing the respect of fellow Wikipedians, and their confidence that he is capable of carrying out reasonably accurate work. Kudpung (talk) 05:02, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- Your request for comment here is just nonsense. I'm not clumsy when I patrol pages, and I'm rarely hasty. I patrol thousands of pages, and if I get one wrong out of every 200, well that's a pretty good record. The complaints are not any more frequent than that, I can tell you. And you know why I just. Don't. Care.? Because the discussion on my talk page was about a speedy tag that I applied — correctly — about 9 months ago. I don't care about something that old. — Timneu22 · talk 00:32, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
There's simply no problem here. NPPers get shit on every day, by idiots who are vandals, by good-faith spammers, by bad-faith spammers, and now by Wikipedia admins who don't have the willingness to be NPPers themselves. To paraphrase: You reap the benefits of the quality-patrol service that I provide, and then question the manner in which I provide it. How many NPPers are there? I know of like three. I have done nothing but help improve the quality of Wikipedia. — Timneu22 · talk 10:51, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- First of all, please try to moderate your language and try to avoid making oblique personal attacks. Not only admins, but also informed editors know exactly who is patrolling new pages, how often they do it, and what their hit and miss rate is. A significant number of new page patrollers are admins, and they put right what the new page patrollers get wrong.
- First, I didn't make any personal attacks. Second, I truly don't appreciate this nonsense discussion taking place on my talk page. — Timneu22 · talk 11:13, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- I think you've rather brought this upon yourself. How about continuing at WP:ANI or WP:RFCC? Kudpung (talk) 11:31, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- And what, exactly, have I brought? I just do the same work I've always done, and now I have people I've never heard of complaining because someone posted something on Jimbo's talk page. Is this some sort of Jimbo-worship mob rule that Conservapedia talks about? Honestly, What is your ultimate goal here? To get rid of a valuable contributor to Wikipedia? This whole thing is pointless. — Timneu22 · talk 11:36, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- I think you've rather brought this upon yourself. How about continuing at WP:ANI or WP:RFCC? Kudpung (talk) 11:31, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- First, I didn't make any personal attacks. Second, I truly don't appreciate this nonsense discussion taking place on my talk page. — Timneu22 · talk 11:13, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- Tim, you nominated Paco Yunque, created by a new editor, Bireswardas (talk · contribs), for deletion 6 minutes after the editor had created the article, with their first edit to Wikipedia. I would like you to consider the effect that this may have on a new contributor: it can be profoundly dispiriting. We have no way of knowing if the editor meant to expand the article further, or if they have been permanently discouraged from contributing here. The work is without question notable: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5].
- I would like you to stop speedying and Afd-ing new articles within minutes of creation, unless they involve serious BLP concerns or are clearly promotional articles. --JN466 13:01, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- I'd like to see more people patrolling so that the backlog articles don't simply fall through. — Timneu22 · talk 13:07, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- Look at the article: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paco_Yunque&oldid=411571338; that's speedyable if it is about a person or a band. It's AfDable otherwise. If it's 6 minutes old or two years old, an article with that text has serious problems because there are no claims to significance. IT'S NOT UP TO ME TO GO SEARCHING FOR EVERY CLAIM OF NOTABILITY FOR EVERY ARTICLE. — Timneu22 · talk 13:11, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
I would point out that the message at the top of Timneu22's talkpage probably encapsulates the problem. Not only is it hostile, it's incorrect. Articles that qualify for deletion under A7 do not require sources or to demonstrate notability, they are only required to assert significance. I had a major run-in with Timneu, culminating in him reporting me to ANI on 17 December [6]. Here's the edit combining an attack on admins with a totally offensive description of a piece of content on the subject of a Hindu holy man (he called it 'a pile of shit' several times) [7]. For convenience, the whole discussion can be read here. The mistake (thinking it was devoid of meaning) was perhaps understandable, the language directed at it was inexcusable and unwarranted. To this day, I do not believe Timneu thinks he did anything wrong. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:14, 9 February 2011 (UTC)