User talk:A Stop at Willoughby/Archive 5

You are now a Reviewer
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 18:01, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Why secret pages should be deleted
Hi, A Stop at Willoughby. I used your rationale for deleting secret pages at Why secret pages should be deleted. Any feedback on the essay would be welcome. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:27, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I have created Miscellany for deletion/Secret pages 2. Cunard (talk) 06:17, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Good to see you back...
Hope you stick around. Hobit (talk) 03:16, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm barely around at the moment. Life (family and work) is killing me.  But things look brighter in a few weeks.  Hope you stick around! Hobit (talk) 19:13, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think we've interacted before, but I agree with Hobit and wish to welcome you back as well: I remember you being a very productive, helpful, and fair person; and when I found out a few months ago that you had retired I was very surprised and saddened by that. It's nice to see your name appear again in my watchlist. Best. Acalamari 19:19, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Ditto. It was disappointing to see you retire; nice to see your name pop up again. :)  Kuru   (talk)  19:38, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Ditto x3 -- welcome back! --Mkativerata (talk) 19:41, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks everyone for your kind words; they mean a lot. They mean a lot coming from you guys – you are among the editors I hold in the highest esteem, after all – and I'm glad to see you're all still around. Yes, I burnt out on Wikipedia pretty badly last year, but it's good to back now. Thanks for the warm welcome. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 19:44, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Paragragh formatting
Yes, welcome back, so sorry to drop this on your plate so soon. While your changes to certain articles regarding fed, state, & county representation do offer the format of introducing a district and then its representatives, the changes made to the templates make the other articles where they are used awkward. I had organized those subsection following this discussion using an introductory paragraph mentioning all districts followed up by templates to explain them. This seemed the most concise way to include all the information w/o repeating the statement (or variations) City/town is part of ... 3/4x. I would suggest that repetition is unnecessary. If you have a strong preference for formatting info as you've done, please have a look at all the articles affected by the change. As it stands now they are wierdly written. Thanks Djflem (talk) 07:57, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, Djflem, and thanks for the welcome back. I'm posting my reply on my own talk page so that anyone else with a question about these edits will be able to find this explanation easily. The edits I'm making are a long-overdue implementation of the consensus reached in this discussion. I am using WP:AWB to change all of the New Jersey municipality articles to conform to the wording we had agreed upon. The changes to the templates in have caused problems in many of these municipality articles, but only temporarily so. Even with AWB, going through all the hundreds of municipality articles is slow going. For an example of what all these articles will look like pretty soon, see Lavallette, New Jersey. I know that there are special considerations as far as Hudson County articles go: Cities split between congressional districts; cities split between legislative districts; and of course, the complex details of the county government. (In Union County all of our freeholders are at large. Much simpler.) As a result, I think you should be free to change these subsections, with respect to county government, as you see fit for municipalities in Hudson County. But I submit that, per the consensus in the discussion I cited, the federal and state representation parts of these subsections should be the way I'm editing them, across all NJ municipality articles. FYI, I've done about half of the municipality articles at this point, and I will hopefully have the other half done within the next couple of days. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 20:14, 11 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Why the preference for using the name of the town name repeatedly in a subsection in an article about the town? Seems that the town name has been well established in the title Djflem (talk) 22:11, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not really a preference for repetition so much as a common sense approach, in my opinion. Two paragraphs each begin with a topic sentence, the subject of which is also the title of the article. The name of the municipality is established by the title of the article, sure, but that doesn't mean it should go unrepeated from paragraph to paragraph. I don't see the problem. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 00:13, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Done
I've now gone through the entire list of NJ municipalities and implemented this consensus. Time to pour myself a celebratory drink. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 01:19, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Just wanted to say I love your username
Yes I realize this is a slightly silly comment compared to the more serious discussions above, but I had to say I love your user name. Seriously underrated episode. HominidMachinae (talk) 08:13, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I agree with your assessment of the episode. The entire first season of the show is great television, and in my opinion "A Stop at Willoughby" is one of Rod Serling's best scripts. (And, of course, one of my favorite episodes; thematically it really strikes a chord.) A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 19:25, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

hi
should i edit the category title to muslim converts involved in terrorist acts? thanks --أبرهة العصبي (talk) 22:32, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Replied on your talk page. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:45, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I apologize, yesterday it was a mess i had a lot of pages opened, chrome crushed like a hundred times as usual so i messed up, i'll see what i can do to fix it and thanks for you revision and your effort. --أبرهة العصبي (talk) 12:55, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * ok i will thank you. --أبرهة العصبي (talk) 21:33, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Gemma Mewse
It's back - is there any difference here? - No new references. As you said, and I believe, she will probably be notable soon, but not just yet Acabashi (talk) 21:32, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't get to see the article before it was G4'd, but based on the comments in the new AfD (and the deleting admin's judgement), I guess the new version was substantially similar to the previously deleted one. Needless to say, Mewse has not drastically increased in notability in the past week; her album still has yet to be released, etc. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 03:49, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Shiloh, Cumberland County, New Jersey
You asked whether there was another Shiloh in New Jersey. Yes. If you look at the Places Named database, you'll see there is one in Warren County. -- BRG (talk) 15:18, 21 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I was using that Places Named database a lot back in those days. Especially because at that time I was doing a lot of that sort of disambiguating. But it's still there, and still quite useful. -- BRG (talk) 17:44, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

DRV
First of all, I would like to thank you for detailed analysis. Although you did not support my request I am very grateful to you and your effort.

There are a couple of things you wrote that I don't agree with. Basically they can be summarized like this:
 * My argument was not only "other stuff exists" type of argument but: "nobody presented an argument why this article should be deleted", “Without valid arguments grounded in wikipedia policy, there is no consensus.” and JUSTPOINT is not enough for deleting.
 * WP:LINKFARM is not violated because deleted article (User:Antidiskriminator/Drafts of articles/List of sources about claims that Vojsava Kastrioti was Slav) was obviously not mere repository of links.
 * I think that argument that you were not sure if it was refuted or not is Allen3's, who noted: "No sourcing for the significance of this list is provided or even hinted at." My opinion was: if there are numerous sources with informations about many claims about her Slav ethnicity, this argument is not valid. TBH, those sources do not mention this list exactly, but many of them contain the text about many claims she was Slav, or she was Albanian. I think that is enough to determine that "the significance of this list is ....hinted at"?

I respect your effort and I am sorry for taking more of your time. Will you please read above mentioned arguments, take look at the deleted article to see if it is "repository of links" and tell me your opinion and advice what to do. Thank you.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:23, 23 April 2011 (UTC)


 * It's no trouble. I think it's only fair that you receive a full response to your concerns (which, though I disagreed with them, were not frivolous).
 * In the DRV, I wrote that a significant part of your argument amounted to "the assertion without explanation that WP:LINKFARM was not violated." In other words, yes, I recognize that the main prong of your argument is that those who argued that these articles were policy violations were misinterpreting policy. I hope this clarifies things.
 * Here again, you're asserting that this is "obviously not a mere repository of links," but you don't really explain why you feel that way. When you say something is obvious, you're implying that a reasonable person will look at the situation and agree with you. That clearly did not happen here – people in the discussion generally agreed that these pages violated WP:LINKFARM. Anyway, you requested that I look at the article and tell you my opinion on whether or not it was a "repository of links." So I looked at it, and I can understand why you argue otherwise. That said, the fact that you've annotated the entries of the list does not really change its fundamental nature. These pages were essentially partial bibliographies, specifically lists of sources to support single statements that could potentially be included in the main article. And honestly, this is pretty much exactly what WP:LINKFARM describes. Articles should not be just collections of references or external links; those belong in the relevant main articles, if anywhere.
 * Thanks for explaining how the significance of the list was at least hinted at. It sounds like the dispute over her ethnicity warrants a section in Vojsava Tripalda. Why not add just such a section to the article, using some of the sources you've compiled (presently in your userspace)? That's what I would do.
 * Again, I hope this clarifies everything. If you have any more points to make or questions to ask, I would be glad to answer them. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 21:19, 25 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for detailed explanation. I enjoyed reading your replies, and feel honoured to be able to communicate with users like you who are probably the biggest value of wikipedia.
 * Also, thank you for your proposal. Before I consider it let me remind you that:
 * this article was nominated for deletion on the same day when it was created. Without noticing the creator (me) and allowing me to resolve potential issues. I think that my efforts to create this articles deserved a chance.
 * 7 out of 16 users during AfD were against delete, and additional 4 users basically said that "sources may be useful for developing an article".
 * Don't you agree that it is useful to have summary of all sources about Vojsava Kastrioti in citation form, both for informative and development purpose?
 * User:Hut 8.5 said something like you said in your comment:"A bibliography on Vojsava Kastrioti would list all works and not just those that support a single statement."
 * Almost all sources which mention Vojsava Kastrioti are dealing with her ethnicity. If I delete page numbers and quotes about her slav or albanian ethnicity and merge those two deleted articles into new one: "Bibliography of works about Vojsava Kastrioti", listing all sources in chronological order, then I would create an article which would be a real bibliography.
 * I think that by doing that we would follow the consensus. WP:CONSENSUS: "Consensus is a decision that takes account of all the legitimate concerns raised". That way we would solve all concerns raised about following WP:LINKFARM, WP:NOT, FORK or any other pointed policy.
 * What do you think about it?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:50, 25 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree that having a list of sources that discuss her is useful. The question is, for what is it useful? In your case, it's useful for developing and improving the main article. But, as Whpq wrote in the AfD, lists of sources to be used in the development of an article really belong in userspace or on a talk page, not in a separate article. But, I suppose what you're saying now is that this list would be useful for readers. We do have a few lists of the sort you're describing, e.g. List of works about Friedrich Nietzsche. But Nietzsche has been very heavily covered in literature – numerous books have been written about him, his philosophy, and his legacy. Although I cannot read the non-English quotes you've included, based on the titles of the sources, it looks as though these works are not actually about Vojsava so much as they are about related topics (e.g. Skanderbeg), with Vojsava's ethnicity discussed in the context of the other topics. So the parallel with the Nietzsche article is not exactly appropriate, and, given the deletions that have already occurred, I wouldn't be optimistic about your "list of works" article lasting all that long.
 * Do you mind if I ask a question? Why don't you address the issue of Vojsava's disputed ethnicity in the main article, using the sources you've accumulated as standard footnoted references? I believe that would also solve all the concerns raised. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 22:21, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You are right. I canceled my DRV request, although it would end with endorse anyway. Thank you for very good explanation. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:38, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 04:19, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

A belated stop at Willoughby
I saw you went inactive for a while, which was a real shame, and meant to drop by when I saw your username on my watchlist a few weeks ago, but evidently got distracted. Anyway, I just wanted to say it's nice to see you back and I always admired the clearly wel thought-out rationales you provide at RfA. Best, HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   11:04, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, HJ! It's good to be back. I know that my vote at your current RfA, while a "support," dwells on some negative stuff, so allow me to clarify: I think you're an excellent admin and (more importantly) a friendly, kind person, and I'm glad to see that you're passing with flying colors. Good luck! A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 00:09, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I expected the negative stuff there, that was kind of the point. While Wehwalt makes a good point about one side not wanting to give the other amuunition, I think the prospect of my head on the chopping block has actually been enough to draw out criticism from people who wouldn't normally comment in a process like admin review. While it's reassuring to know that I'll probably only have to spend a week without the bit, it's interesting to see where people think I've cocked up and with a bit of luck, it'll make me a better admin. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   00:30, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it will. And you're certainly right about a reconfirmation's advantage over admin review; RfA attracts far more participants, many of whom probably have never participated in an editor review or admin review. (For instance, I'm pretty sure I fall in that category!) I also think reconfirmation has an advantage over simple recall; while recall occurs in the heat of the moment (think User:Looie496/Recall), reconfirmation has the advantage of perspective. If you were recalled during that template-protection affair, maybe you'd have lost the mop – which I think would have been overreaction. But, since this RfA is running now, people are reflecting on the totality of your time as an admin and are generally registering a positive impression. Part of the reason why Sarek is running into some trouble at his reconfirmation is because his problems have arisen on multiple occasions over time. The whole WP:INVOLVED thing might sink him, but I hope he sticks with the project; he's a valuable editor whose departure would be our loss. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 00:48, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I've had the advantage of working with Sarek as an admin and I do think the INVOLVED issues are concerning and something that he should show more concern over, but, taken as a whole, I think he's been much more of a help than a hinderence, which is why I'm supporting. Although many people have remarked that these recall RfAs have been a waste of time, I think some good has (and still can) come from them. It does amuse me that people complain about lack of accountability of admins but then protest when two admins try to make themselves accountable. Still, it's a poor substitute for a lightweight de-adminship system, but I've yet to see a proposal for that which has nay hope of working or gaining consensus. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   14:46, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It is amusing, although I'm not certain that those who complain about lack of accountability are the same ones who are protesting these reconfirmations. For what it's worth, I don't think they're a waste of time at all. Maybe they would be if a large number of candidates needed evaluation, but that's hardly the case now that the number of viable RfAs per week is generally one or two. It would be nice to see a real de-adminship system in place, but I think the only way we might reach that is through baby steps. That is, we might have to start out with something like "admins must either step down or run for re-confirmation after four/five years, if they're still active." After all, the idea of a reverse RfA is probably not going to get consensus anytime soon. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 22:46, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Sadly not, which wouldn't be such an issue if we could ArbCom to act on the rare bad eggs. But alas, they won't touch a case about admin conduct unless it involves really disgusting egregious abuse. Or, of course, if the admin in question defies their rulings. Maybe RfA would calm down if we had clear policies on desysopping. Or I believe some wikis use a system wherby an admin has a propbationary period and has to go back to RfA if he wants to keep the tolls after that. Until we have something, I can only see the standards at RfA getting higher, which is not a good thing when the ratio of active admins to admin actions that need to be performed is lower than it ever has been (hence, I managed to clock up over 20k logged actions in 11 months). HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   12:47, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah. My default position at RfA is "support" – that is, I will support unless there's a good reason why I shouldn't – but I know there are others who feel the opposite way. I do think that having a de-adminship process in place would loosen up the ever-increasing standards at RfA. But honestly, while it's important to hold admins accountable, I doubt that that all that many more admins would be desysopped through such a process than are currently desysopped pursuant to ArbCom machinations. Perhaps the fundamental problem here is voters' distrust of ArbCom, and that's not a problem that we can fix through discussions or proposals at WT:RFA. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 14:07, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello!
Just to tell you that you have been mentioned here by me.. :) -- WhiteWriter speaks 18:06, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note. I left a comment at the noticeboard. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 00:09, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

PNG Encyclopedia
Yes and no. I received one (wrong) volume, and complained that there were supposed to be three. They acknowledged this just yesterday, and are now sending the other two. Eclecticology (talk) 11:30, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Vojsava Tripalda
--Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:52, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

inre Articles for deletion/Numb to life
While agreeing with you that the article is WP:TOOSOON, I hope you might support a redirect (for now) to Jason Cook (actor). While the film itself does not yet show notability, the filmmaker (whose article I am improving), himself does. What say?  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 19:37, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

RE:Template In the News
I recieved your message and understand why you closed the deletion, yeah, I goofed, it was in the wrong place, no problem there. I read what you said about it having consensus and may not put it up a TFD. Either way, thanks for letting me know. KoshVorlon Naluboutes ''AeriaGloris 19:53, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!!!
Hi dear-I personally want to appreciate your time and effort in analyzing my First Article "Jeeva Artist". First I want to apologize for the inconvenience caused by me to all reviewers. Next the reason I saved it without complete details was - As you know - In India Power Cut is a common issue. I don't have backup. So I want to make sure the start stays there. Hey, Even I didn't know I saved it within a minute. Thanks for noticing it and pointing it out to others too.

I read WP:BEEF segment and understood the issues you(reviewers) face. Sorry and once again Thanks! Take care. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pvrmagesh (talk • contribs) 19:06, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Non-free content
Hi. What you've come back with is a rationalisation of why we might want to use non-free content, it's a rationalisation which is up to a point understood by the foundation (hence why there isn't a blanket ban). The point really was that the delete side can also rationalise their view point, so the absurdity of either is really a question of perspective. Personally I see problems with non-free content when considering wider uses than wikipedia the online resource (e.g. publishing on DVD), as such if an image is truly vital to understanding we really really want to find a free image and a poor image is quite possibly better than no image. --82.7.44.178 (talk) 07:35, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link, when I've a bit more time I'll read it and take a look at any flap at WP:AN. I guess I come from a perspective where (a) I'm more a words person that pictures person anyway, so many pictures aren't a great loss (that's not to say I don't appreciate the value many place on images) and (b) having seen the non-free aspect get out of control in the past which ultimately led to the foundation resolution. Remembering I haven't read your link yet, the conflict between the two is perhaps something I don't get along with too well, the two aren't contradictory in the vast majority of cases. We have many high quality free images which make for the high quality encyclopaedia, that we don't have one in any particular place isn't necessarily a great reason to use fair use - given I suspect most peoples nature is that once it's there the drive to get a free image is lessened. As a project we've got huge amounts of work to create the high-quality encyclopaedia, such that having to find every perfect image immediately doesn't seem that big a priority. The other area I strain with is that people do seem to treat images in a significantly different regard to text, from those who want to allow NC for their own images which they won't contribute otherwise, and fair use of text where we don't declare to that produce the high-quality encyclopaedia we immediately need to rip large chunks of someone else work to fill the gap... (The fair use text/image of course aren't directly comparable, but it's the general principal - we'll wait for someone to write the text, so why not wait for the photo?) --82.7.44.178 (talk) 19:09, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Idea that may solve the issue
I started something that i never done before, but i like it already very, very much. As explained here, i started new draft on Vojsava Tripalda‎‎, with idea to create article, sentence by sentence. As article is quite small, we will easily add part by part, and create one good version that will be the best. Please, say to the talk page will you participate, as i would really give my best to help, compromise and do what ever is needed to finally, after one year of discussion, end this on the best way, friendly and calmly. I will do my best, and i hope that you will do that also. :) All best. -- WhiteWriter speaks 22:14, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your participation. Following your agreement, please, write your comment regarding template here. Thanks, this will be great, i am sure. -- WhiteWriter speaks 16:03, 20 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for letting me know about this. A Stop at Willoughby (talk)

Re: List of Wrong Turn characters
Could you point me to the deletion discussion about this article? I can't find it, but I wanted to check with you before I declined the SD nom  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 00:54, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Ignore this, I found it!  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 00:55, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for deleting it. I didn't realize at the time I tagged that article that there was a "votepage" parameter in db-afd, but I'll be sure to use it in the future when necessary. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 03:13, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Nicholas H. Carter


The article Nicholas H. Carter has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Failed candidate who fails WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. TM 20:05, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Nicholas H. Carter for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Nicholas H. Carter is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Nicholas H. Carter until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. TM 02:42, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Vojsava Tripalda
Hello! I just wanted to inform you that we should finish the work we started. Article Vojsava Tripalda, with numerous problematic parts, are recreated so far by lede and one section, so i ask you what should we do next? Lets finish this.


 * Recreated article
 * Talk for the recreation

Thanks for you great contribution so far. -- WhiteWriter speaks 15:28, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
--I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a message on my talk page. @ 17:16, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Taiwanese Archipelago
218.250.159.25 (talk) 07:36, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks! I'm glad someone read it. :) A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 21:09, 16 February 2012 (UTC)