User talk:Cohneli

That db-g7...
I think if you stick to the letter of the law, you were entitled to add a G7 tag to that article. However, if I had been the deciding admin, I would have declined it because deleting the article would have been detremental to Wikipedia. It was useful information in the mainspace (i.e. released under GFDL etc) and really there was no good reason to delete it. But that's just my opinion. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:28, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No, there is a good reason to delete it (besides my being the main author of the page), and this reason is well explained in the new tag placed on the top of the article. The information in the article is no longer useful, as I explained on the talk page of the article. I can't imagine why the main author's request should not be respected, mainly when the main author gives a good reason for his request. Cohneli (talk) 12:27, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Well even old data is useful. So I've declined the prod and added some notes to the page.  The Rambling Man (talk) 13:09, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * My reasoning is pretty much along the lines of the Rambling Man above, if you stick to a rigid interpretation of the criteria for speedy deletion then perhaps it should have been deleted. Yet the wording "substantial contributions" is entirely subjective and in effect ignored if there is some ambiguity. I believed that deleting it would not have been in the best interests of Wikipedia and as you added it under the GFDL, there is little recourse to demand that it be deleted. You can open up and afd that will get more opinions than just mine if you still feel strongly that it should be deleted. As a data set, it is still valid information, as long as it is made clear that this is the predicted data on the old methodology. I am sorry that this has proved something of a stressful issue for you. I hope my reasoning above offers something of an explanation as to my actions. Regards, Woody (talk) 13:55, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * "if you stick to a rigid interpretation of the criteria for speedy deletion then perhaps it should have been deleted".
 * Why "perhaps"? You rejected my request, for the reason that I was not the only author. Do you still think that your decision was based on a correct reason, after I proved that when I asked for a speedy deletion I was the only "substantial" author? Can you find any other editor who had contributed "substantially" to the article by the moment I asked for a speedy deletion?
 * "Yet the wording substantial contributions is entirely subjective and in effect ignored if there is some ambiguity".
 * In some cases it may subjective, e.g. where there is some ambiguity. However, I presented an objective clear proof on your talk page, and this proof involves no ambiguity. If you stiil think that there is some ambiguity, then would you tell me: which any other author had contributed "substantially" to the author by the moment I asked for a speedy deletion? If you can't find such an author, then why did you reject my requset?
 * Cohneli (talk) 16:39, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The reasons for my removal of the tag is available in my answer above, I won't repeat myself. The definition of "substantial content" is entirely subjective, are "gnomish" efforts such as dash cleanup, section ordering, category additions etc substantial contributions? Some would argue yes, some would argue no. If other people's edits are still in the article and have not been entirely reverted, then they have made a contribution to that page. You are not the "sole author" of that page. I repeat that if you want it deleted go to articles for deletion. Woody (talk) 16:58, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It seems like you're ignoring my point. Look at this version made yesterday, when you decided to reject my request for the following reason: "g7 doesn't apply, more than one author". Now listen: on your talk page, I've presented a clear sequence of events, which proves that the only editors, except for me, who had contributed anything to the article by the moment I made my request db-g7, had only replaced the dashes "-" to the dashes "–", deleted blank lines, and changed the word "HDI" to the word "UN", that's all ! So, when you rejected my request - for the reason: "g7 doesn't apply, more than one author", did you do that because you decided that changing dashes (or deleting blank lines, or changing the word "HDI" to the word "UN") should be considered a "substantial" content? If your answer is positive, than do you really think this is a reasonable consideration? However, if you didn't consider it a "substantial" content, then what did you mean then by "more than one author"? Which another author? I just want to figure out if you still think that your reasoning "g7 doesn't apply, more than one author", could be justified then! That's all! I don't blame anybody, because such mistakes should be forgivable, but I would like to know if you still think now what you thought then, that's all. Cohneli (talk) 17:24, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, removing this list would damage Wikipedia. It may be old data, but it's data nevertheless.  It should stay with appropriate notes.  Speedy deletions, amongst many other processes, can be denied if the net effect is to damage the encyclopedia.  You submitted this information under GFDL and have no right to revoke it at all I'm afraid.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:00, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but you didn't refer to my point, about Woody's original reasoning for rejecting my original request, as I explained above. Cohneli (talk) 18:05, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

You didn't make a point to me. I'm telling you how it is now. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:06, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You responded to my response to Woody. If you'd wanted to talk about my point to you, you sould have started a new thread. Cohneli (talk) 18:09, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Not at all, it's all the same matter. I have addressed your concern over why the page wasn't speedily deleted (harmful to Wikipedia) so there's little more to worry about here, other than improving the article. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:12, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * My concern was another one, as explained in the very title of this thread. It's about Woody's wrong decision, and I've already explained to them why it was a wrong decision. For more details, see my last response to Woody. Cohneli (talk) 18:16, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Then why do you continually add the changes I'm making to the talk page? The refusal for speedy deletion was absolutely correct as it would have harmed Wikipedia to do so.  Woody was correct.  Dragging this on is pointless.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:20, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't tell me how to edit my response, just as I don't tell you.
 * I've explained to Woody why their reasoning was unjustified. For more details, see my last response to Woody.
 * Cohneli (talk) 18:23, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * What are you trying to achieve then? Please stop adding useless diffs to the talkpage.  It is all very clear from the article history.  CHeers. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:26, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I want to know if Woody is aware of the fact that their reasoning for rejecting my original request was not justified. As for the diffs: There were always ten diffs, and ten diffs are sufficient for proving that Woody's reasoning was wrong. Cohneli (talk) 18:36, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Anybody who makes an edit to a page, no matter how minor you may consider it, is an author to that page. That is not to say that some wiki-gnome who changes the odd dash is a substantial content author but they are still a content author none the less. I was not incorrect in my edit summary stating that there was more than one author, even the most slight of changes makes them an author of the page. Woody (talk) 23:18, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * According to Wikipedia guidelines, the applicant of Db-g7 request does not need to be the only author, but rather "the only author who contributed the substantial content". However, when you rejected my request, you reasoned your rejection by the claim: "more than one author". So, did you really do that because you decided that the fact of my not being the only editor - is a justified reason for rejecting my request? If your answer is positive, than do you still think so even now? However, if you didn't consider it a justified reason, then what did you mean then by "more than one author"? What's bad with my not being the only author - as long as I'm the only author who contributed the "substantial content"? I just want to figure out if you still think that your reasoning "more than one author", could be justified then! That's all! I don't blame anybody, because such mistakes should be forgivable, but I would like to know if you still think now what you thought then, that's all. Cohneli (talk) 07:54, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Article talk page
Please do not remove other people's comments and valid templates from article talk pages as you did in this edit. Doing so may be considered disruptive. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:05, 10 January 2011 (UTC)