|
——————————————— Wee Curry Monster's Talk Page ———————————————
|
|
“ | Many people are like garbage trucks. They run around full of garbage, full of frustration, full of anger, and full of disappointment. As their garbage piles up, they look for a place to dump it. And if you let them, they’ll dump it on you. So when someone wants to dump on you, don’t take it personally. Just smile, wave, wish them well, and move on. Believe me. You’ll be happier. --THE LAW OF THE GARBAGE TRUCK | ” |
Thank you
I just read your closing remark. Very well put. Needless to say, it was a relief when you showed up. But you're right that the talk page has become toxic, and I too have withdrawn, at least until the protection is lifted. Hopefully your (and Elemimele's) suggestion will be heeded and the page will be carefully stewarded forward in line with BLP. My sense is that we're fighting people who think his bio just isn't hinting strongly enough that he's a misogynist. I thought about appending something along those lines to your comment. But I think your statement is an excellent place to leave it. Once again, you have my thanks. Thomas B (talk) 17:11, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
Thanks again for your efforts. I'll be on my way. It will be interesting to see what happens with the page now.Thomas B (talk) 19:31, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
British possessions
Hello. What is spammy about links to the British possession article? Largoplazo (talk) 13:05, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
- The article was created last October and link spammed to literally hundreds of articles in a matter of days. Cleaning up the mess is simply on my list of things to do. The British possession article really shouldn't exist, its a loose term people often use but as a "thing" doesn't exist. The article is little more than a WP:DICDEF bloated by references to and quotes from legislation. I will get round to nominating for deletion again shortly. WCMemail 13:09, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
- When an article is created, it's normal, not spam, to find all the places where it's referenced in other articles and link them. In fact, the abundance of a term across many articles can indicate that an article would be valuable if the subject meets the guidelines for inclusion.
- It's irrelevant whether you like the article. If you think it qualifies for deletion, then nominate it for deletion. If it's deleted, a bot will remove the links with no effort on anyone's part. Otherwise, it's a valid article and it's valid to link to (except as provided by WP:OVERLINKING). Largoplazo (talk) 16:31, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
- Follow-up: I just saw that a deletion discussion closed three months ago with "no consensus". If your unlinking is a reaction to that, it amounts to a circumvention of that outcome via a unilateral "shunning" of the article. That's improper. "Qualifies for inclusion but not to be linked to" is an outcome unlikely to emerge from any community discussion. Largoplazo (talk) 16:51, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
- I suggest you both use the WP:WLH tool and you will find that link spammed to multiple articles and it is very much a case of WP:OVERLINKING. As a constructive editor who's been on Wikipedia since 2007, I am disappointed neither of you have chosen to assume good faith but seen fit to come to my talk page to deliver a lecture and accusations of misconduct. This was not an appropriate use of my talk page.
- Further, please feel free to point to anywhere or anything that has "British possession status" or has had it in the past. I'll wait. Its an ephemeral term, loosely applied to territory that was part of the British Empire, which has no precision in its definition. It is not suitable encyclopedic content and removing WP:OVERLINKING is well within policy.
I'll also thank you that in future per WP:TPG you do not refactor my talk page. [1]WCMemail 13:50, 20 February 2024 (UTC)- Just to take up the challenge raised by @Wee Curry Monster the Pitcairn Islands were found to be a British Possession by no less than the UK Privy Council. That determination had real world impact, not as some "ephemeral term, loosely applied". I take no position on over-linking, but arguments about the article not being encyclopedic are irrelevant to the appropriateness of the links and appear to be an attempt to re-argue the AfD. That was found to be no consensus, IMHO, not because of the merits but because discussion had devolved into a contentless shouting match. Oblivy (talk) 02:56, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
- And you failed to meet the challenge I raised. British possession is defined in legislation as a shorthand or dictionary definition. Legislators define the term separately and differently in different pieces of legislation, demonstrating it was never a well-defined term with specific meaning. It has never been an administrative division of the British Empire as claimed and which I challenged you to prove. Whilst many WP:PRIMARY sources may refer to British possessions it is difficult to see this article as anything but a dictionary stub and as such not notable. It is perhaps suitable for Wiktionary content, see also WP:DICDEF for relevant guidance. Per MOS:OVERLINK
Everyday words understood by most readers in context
the term should not be routinely linked. It baffles me why editors are so hell bent on stopping a clear up. - But you are right, it was a terrible AfD. WCMemail 07:32, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
- And you failed to meet the challenge I raised. British possession is defined in legislation as a shorthand or dictionary definition. Legislators define the term separately and differently in different pieces of legislation, demonstrating it was never a well-defined term with specific meaning. It has never been an administrative division of the British Empire as claimed and which I challenged you to prove. Whilst many WP:PRIMARY sources may refer to British possessions it is difficult to see this article as anything but a dictionary stub and as such not notable. It is perhaps suitable for Wiktionary content, see also WP:DICDEF for relevant guidance. Per MOS:OVERLINK
- Just to take up the challenge raised by @Wee Curry Monster the Pitcairn Islands were found to be a British Possession by no less than the UK Privy Council. That determination had real world impact, not as some "ephemeral term, loosely applied". I take no position on over-linking, but arguments about the article not being encyclopedic are irrelevant to the appropriateness of the links and appear to be an attempt to re-argue the AfD. That was found to be no consensus, IMHO, not because of the merits but because discussion had devolved into a contentless shouting match. Oblivy (talk) 02:56, 21 February 2024 (UTC)