Talk:Shirley Coryndon

infobox

 * the Objective_Revision_Evaluation_Service indicates that the infobox adds to the quality of this article. if you have questions about the algorithm, ask there.
 * i presented objective evidence, and you presented a subjective personal essay. Beatley (talk) 18:39, 10 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Please explain why you think this infobox is in any way an improvement on this article?  Cassianto Talk   18:45, 10 January 2017 (UTC)


 * i do not "think": it ORES says -
 * with infobox "B": 0.0210501882918298,              "C": 0.0353715360713943,              "FA": 0.0022212558146308954,              "GA": 0.008359664816324717,              "Start": 0.6039562175026347,              "Stub": 0.3290411375031854
 * without infobox "B": 0.017376208902974293,              "C": 0.03728389340564461,              "FA": 0.0020169749742451116,              "GA": 0.008084433890642086,              "Start": 0.5290789107271683,              "Stub": 0.4061595780993255.
 * do you have an objective fact to consider ? Beatley (talk) 23:10, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * See Talk:Marion Parris Smith for why ORES is useless or counterproductive for this task of determining whether an infobox is actually a helpful addition. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:30, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * please provide objective evidence why an infobox is not an improvement. Beatley (talk) 21:46, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * onus is on you to justify why one should be added.  Cassianto Talk   21:53, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * the onus is on you to collaborate. you may imagine that your blocking of progess on 200 biographies is collaboration, but it is a matter of time until a consensus shouts you down. whenever, you have some objective metric to support you essay, then you might have something constructive to say.