Talk:Emil Notti

Untitled
Downgrading the quality rating to start, as much is out there in reliable sources pertaining to Notti's life that is missing from the article, instead favoring material which relates to other notable topics. As AFC has repeatedly shown that they have their own agenda, I'll let the reviewer or anyone else over there decide whether to follow along. Speaking of which, personal to : from looking at this article and revision history, how is it that you justify passing this through to article space with multiple citations to other Wikipedia articles? Are you sending the message that this is something AFC doesn't need to be concerned with? Citations are certainly important, but the cleanup tag you left makes it appear as if the mere existence or non-existence of citations is all that matters. The revision history tells me that you also passed this through to article space with copyvio images that someone else had to clean up in your wake. Recently, you were the originator of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Bret Maness; there are still copyvio images of Maness on Commons. Once again, not your problem, right? That's the message I'm getting. It makes continuing to justify going through the motions with your little script even more galling than before. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 00:51, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what you know about the mission of AfC review is but you got it wrong. We help new editors publish while screening out all kinds of garbage. We don't require perfection from new editors on Drafts, we know that Wikipedia is about collabertive editing. If some new editor formatted a wikilink like a ref - who cares? That can be fixed. We first assess if there is a reason to CSD the page. Then we assess notability. If notable it is supposed to be moved to mainspace for improvement.


 * I do not work on images on Commons and AfC does not have image rights evaluation in our workflow. Why would you even suggest that image management is any of my concern?


 * Having passed hundreds of pages to mainspace I know there are editors the specialize in rating, tagging, categorizing, copyediting, wikilinking and other such tasks. Each to his own chosen activity. If AFC reviewers were required to do all those tasks (or worse required newbies to do it all) the backlog would be way longer than 2+ months and most AfC reviewers would quit.
 * , huh? Because I don't have time, I'll gladly put aside whether that violates WP:NPA.  I've made it well know that my "weird agenda" is new page patrol and article assessment in certain topic areas, something you appear to acknowledge in your last paragraph.  I've slowed that activity way down in recent years on account of certain editors who believe those processes exist to be gamed to benefit their pet projects.  As no checks and balances are occurring among the community at large, excepting when someone goes forum-shopping trying to further game process, I'm wasting a lot of time discussing things with fellow editors who don't appear to be as interested in the concept of building consensus through discussion.  It was only because I began taking on the aforementioned NPP task that AFC's behavior hit my radar.  Specifically, there was a submission on a topic that is arguably of high importance to WP Alaska and of greater than low importance to other WPs, that made plainly clear to any reviewer that it was an inherently notable topic, and a topic which a Wikipedian in Jamaica was clamoring for on their userspace, despite the lack of any apparent connection of the topic to Jamaica.  That submission had been buried in pre-draftspace AFC purgatory for 13 months by the time I discovered it, with no effort made whatsoever by anyone on the AFC side to alert interested editors or to improve it despite decades' worth of coverage of the topic in reliable sources.  I've observed an extensive pattern of this sort of thing by AFC in the six or seven years since.  It's as if AFC is a "weird" bureaucratic process that attempts to arbitrarily or artificially define what is and isn't notable when merely reflecting it would do just fine.  The ill effects on our coverage should be evident to anyone with their head screwed on straight;  we've gone largely from a sincere attempt to be "the sum total of all human knowledge" when I first came here in 2006 to lately being a mindless regurgitation of what's trending on the web today and a half-assed attempt to cover other notable topics.  Based on a check of Special:Contributions just a little while ago, my last 500 edits go back over a year and a quarter.  Your last 500 edits go back less than two days.  In other words, "even Ray Charles can see" that you have a whole lot more time for this than I do.  You talk about "screening out all kinds of garbage", yet that evidently doesn't include patently non-RS such as other Wikipedia articles, as I already pointed out and you've already attempted to excuse away.  This is already getting too long and I'm straying away from discussing this article.  You do know what a biography is, don't you?  The reason for my original comment should be obvious.  Emil Notti is a person with a list of accomplishments which arguably goes on forever.  The article I discovered came painfully short of reflecting those accomplishments and in biographical details in general, instead consisting of a lot of empty content which substantially dwells on peripherially related topics.  Your concern seems to be focused on how pretty it looks, which you affirm by removing the tags I placed.  So long as you throw around jargon like "mission" and "workflow" and make lots of edits for the sake of making lots of edits, you appear justified in the fact that messes have been carried over to article space that others have to eventually clean up.  There's also been quite a pattern of that by AFC reviewers.  I make reference to Luke 11:46 on my user page.  Sometimes I wonder if I should have put Luke 11:52 there instead, as there has been a lot of blind-leading-the-blind cluelessness ruling the roost around the encyclopedia, with obvious effects on content. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions  04:43, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

There is no AfC agenda just editors trying to do the best job they can sorting submissions. I don't concern myself about what content any Wikiproject is looking for, and I don't have unlimited time. I do read and work quick and the processes I follow generate plenty of edits (moves, tags, comments, logging, talkpage notifications. Anyway I can't help solve your grand problems but I'm not going to allow this page to be over tagged with issues, none of which are discussed on talk. If you really don't like this page AfD it but be prepared to explain why after you agreed the topic is notable. Legacypac (talk) 04:54, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Meanwhile, you started your original response by talking about "screening out all kinds of garbage". The article I discovered contains all kinds of garbage as far as the context of the biography of Emil Notti is concerned.  As my efforts demonstrated, AFN and ANCSA already have their own articles, yet your response was to whitewash the WP:COATRACK concerns, bringing up a "weird agenda" as a red herring instead.  The article also gives undue weight to Notti's role in ANCSA, using specific biased language in doing so.  That's WP:PEACOCK, something else you're trying to whitewash.  There exists an extensive list of persons who played various pivotal roles in making ANCSA happen, most of whom lack articles.  Many of these people have died in recent years, their deaths noted by mainstream media, yet the regulars over at the recent deaths page act as if they could care less while they busy themselves with their constant MOS pedantry.  Your appear to be content to play the same kind of game WRT your favored process, unconcerned about whether it's contributing to the goal of "the sum total of all human knowledge".
 * Do you need me to provide specific examples? Your responses thus far tell me that it would be a waste of time.  Overall, your concern appears to be that if the article looks a certain way and happens to contain inline citations, everything's okay and any further cleanup is someone else's problem.  And yet you talk about collaboration?  Ha ha, very funny.  Then I check over at Commons a little while ago and see that the creator is still attempting to improperly upload an image of Notti.  The response thus far has been to bombard that user with robo-messages, because actually helping them like a human being would help a human being in real life might slow down the whole process of going through the motions and making tons of useless edits in the process.  That's something else I've seen in abundance from AFC regulars over the years, a practice which I no longer have the time to step in and intervene when it amounts to a net negative. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions  02:28, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Infobox photo
Was this really intended to help readers identify the subject, or merely to help editors fill holes in the infobox for the sake of filling holes? You have got to be kidding me. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 05:10, 23 October 2022 (UTC)