User:Imaginatorium/talk-shevonsilva

This page is a repository for copies of my postings at User_talk:Shevonsilva. Because this user routinely removes any posting he finds inconvenient, I find it useful to have a collected record of my postings, as would normally be on another user's talk page or archives.

About vacuous articles
You might like to have a look at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Scotland. You recently created the stub Grampian, Highland and Islands (link to original version, with the text: "Grampian, Highland and Islands is one of the six sheriffdoms covering the whole of Scotland."

But you did not bother to notice that at the bottom of the page there is a list of the sheriffdoms, with a link to an existing page, to which I made your stub page redirect: Grampian, Highland and Islands. Why do you not take more care? Editing WP is supposed to be a job of collaborating, to make the encyclopedia better, to make information easier to find. It is not about scoring points by creating thousands of content-free articles. In this case, for example, you made access to the existing information harder to find; this is a negative contribution.

There is a second problem. You seem to have the idea that WP is a huge data structure (perhaps more like what wikidata is supposed to be); you think that essentially any name or phrase that occurs in WP should have an article for its referent. A good example is at COROP, where you added a huge number of links, but almost all to areas which are not noteworthy, except insofar as they are divisions used by COROP. So of course they should be listed in the COROP article, but that is all. For example (the first in the list, I think), you made a link from Northern Netherlands, which redirects to "Dutch Republic", a completely different concept. There simply is no point in having an item in a list converted to a link to a page that informs the reader that this item is a member of the list. This annoys readers, or to put it another way, is simply silly.

If you want other examples, I have lots: Rodrigues has a list of the "zones" into which it is divided; these are basically various towns, only one of which has a (real) article. But you converted a list of these zone numbers into a list of blue links to pages each of which says, for some n, "Zone n is a zone of Rodrigues". Can you explain the purpose of this for readers of the encyclopedia?


 * Another example: Melilla you made the Spanish ordinals into links, and each of the pages says "District n is a district of Melilla located on the north coast of Africa and shared border with Morocco." Would you like to try to correct the grammatical error in this.

I suggest you try to make a serious response to this. Deleting comments from your talk page is just one of your modes of noncooperation, but if you delete this, you will next see it at ANI. I am sure you are acting in good faith, but many of your edits (well, actually stub creations) are not improvements, and waste vast amounts of time on AfDs. Imaginatorium (talk) 14:45, 28 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I can't agree any more strongly with . Your mass-creation of short stubs does not help the reader in any way. You are creating articles simply for the sake of creating articles, without adding any actual content. I don't know enough about the Netherlands to know if the COROP regions are notable and known by residents or are merely statistical grouping, so I asked at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Netherlands, but you certainly don't know anything about these. But why do they need separate articles? These are included in the main article and your stubs contribute nothing. It serves no one to have articles on such statistical areas as individual NUTS regions, when each country already has an article covering them as a whole. How is it useful to have one-liners like Electoral District 1, Turks and Caicos Islands when the divisions could be covered at Elections in the Turks and Caicos Islands?


 * If you think every district in the world needs its own article, you need to slow down and put consideration and content into these pages. For example, if you think there should be an article for Overig Zeeland, wouldn't it have made sense to mention what municipalities are included in it? COROP provides more information! Wouldn't it have made sense for North Mahé to mention which districts were in it? The existing Template:Districts of Seychelles is more helpful than whatever you did! This is not a net-positive contribution. Many of these districts are merely statistical areas or groupings without their own governments or substantive coverage about them (not just mentioning them). The vast majority of your articles should be redirects unless it's established that they are actually warranted. Reywas92Talk 17:13, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

SS response
Unverifiable claim of discussion at ANI [sic] on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Scotland

COROP
You added many links to this article: some are pointless, because they go to permastubs which say "X is a COROP region". Others are plain wrong, because the link to different regions. Northern Netherlands, for example, goes to a political division, which has nothing to do with COROP, and Southern Netherlands goes to an unrelated historical entity. This makes the encyclopedia worse, because it is giving confusing or wrong information. Similarly entries like Rest of Groningen are sublimely silly, because they can never say anything other than that this is a COROP region, which anyone reading the link already knows. Unless you can respond within 24 hours in coherent English, with any sort of explanation, I will start the ANI thing again. I really wish you could understand that I have nothing against you personally, in fact I have considerable empathy, since I also live in a country (Japan) where I am not a native speaker of the local language. But your inability to understand what others are saying, in combination with your combatitive attitude makes it really hard to see how your contributions are helping. Imaginatorium (talk) 18:18, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Bulma (framework)
PROD discussion removed...


 * Why does the article Bulma (framework) begin with the words "Bootstrap is ..."? That seems a very relevant question. And the sentence "Bootstrap is a free and open-source CSS framework depends on Flexbox." is not good English. It makes no sense. Should there be a "which" before "depends"? Or something different? If you really think this English is "right", you should not be trying to edit English Wikipedia, but should be working on a Wikipedia with whose language you are more familiar. Please slow down and take more care to create stubs which have the right words and which make sense in English. Thank you.  Pam  D  17:35, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Why does the article Bulma (framework) begin with the words "Bootstrap is ..."? That seems a very relevant question. And the sentence "Bootstrap is a free and open-source CSS framework depends on Flexbox." is not good English. It makes no sense. Should there be a "which" before "depends"? Or something different? If you really think this English is "right", you should not be trying to edit English Wikipedia, but should be working on a Wikipedia with whose language you are more familiar. Please slow down and take more care to create stubs which have the right words and which make sense in English. Thank you.  Pam  D  17:35, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I really created article using my tablet. Thanks for pointing out about it.  You can also modify it too as a contribution as it is an un-deliberate obvious mistake.  Right words are there in the articles.  Sorry I cannot explain English grammar for you here (Note: What is good English is depending on personnel viewpoint) .Thanks.  Shevonsilva (talk) 18:02, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Bulma (framework) moved to draftspace
An article you recently created, Bulma (framework), does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of " " before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. noq (talk) 18:08, 21 August 2019 (UTC)