User talk:Ed Poor/Archive 5

Proposed deletion of My Hitch in Hell


The article My Hitch in Hell has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * No indication of notability, no independent coverage.

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. Sum mer PhD (talk) 03:13, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of A Christmas Carol (TV 1949)


The article A Christmas Carol (TV 1949) has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Permanent stub with no sources.

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. Sum mer PhD (talk) 03:24, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Fleshpots of Egypt


A tag has been placed on Fleshpots of Egypt, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent. If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions about this.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:23, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of My Hitch In Hell
A tag has been placed on My Hitch In Hell, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect to an article talk page, file description page, file talk page, MediaWiki page, MediaWiki talk page, category talk page, portal talk page, template talk page, help talk, user page, user talk or special page from the main/article space.

If you can fix the redirect to point to a mainspace page, please do so and remove the speedy deletion tag. However, please do not remove the speedy deletion tag unless you are fixing the redirect. If you think the redirect should be retained as is for some reason, contest the deletion by clicking on the button that looks like this: which appears inside of the speedy deletion  tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the article's talk page directly to give your reasons. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. DASHBot (talk) 18:01, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Jonathan Schiffman


The article Jonathan Schiffman has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Permanent stub. Poorly referenced BLP.

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. Sum mer PhD (talk) 05:31, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Larry Moffitt


The article Larry Moffitt has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * No indication of notability. Poorly referenced BLP.

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. Sum mer PhD (talk) 05:37, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Schleifer


The article Schleifer has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Two articles, both poorly sourced, smashed into one. No indication of notability.

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. Sum mer PhD (talk) 05:39, 22 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Merged to Schleifer. --Uncle Ed (talk) 20:14, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Schleifer for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Schleifer 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/Schleifer 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. Sum mer PhD (talk) 01:19, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Formal request
Per discussion on my user talk, your admission that you "barely know what I'm doing" and "can't write for beans" and the fact that WP:Competency is required on Wikipedia, I am formally requesting that you cease and desist creating new articles until such time as you acquire sufficient competence to do so without creating so many articles that are so malformed as to be immediately proposed/nominated for deletion. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:21, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I would like to second this request. Quote bombing a blank page with out of context sentences or snatches of political/religious rhetoric in place of actual content is not the way to start a viable article. Sources matter, especially WP:RELIABLE mainstream ones as opposed to WP:FRINGE ones. Wikipedia has grown up a lot in the last few years, there has been an increased move toward better articles with better sourcing and away from just creating stubs. We are in the "fleshing out" phase now and you need to adapt to this. Please create future articles in user space and only after you have written at least the beginnings of a viable article should you move it to article space. This will save all of us time and head aches. Thanks.  He  iro  07:50, 13 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I will take your recent and ill-considered creation of Flemming Rule (which I've now redirected) to indicate that you don't intend to comply with this request. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:25, 16 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Your request is specious and demeaning. It's outside of Wikipedia rules and guidelines.


 * I have created over 1,000 articles at Wikipedia, nearly all of which began as stubs. It is the wiki nature to build something step by step, and many people can help. That is the essence of WP:TEAMWORK.


 * You seem to disagree with Wikipedia standards and customs, and seek to impose on me a strange rule that I avoid creating the sort of article that you would have deleted. Your grounds for deletion violate afd guidelines, and in a recent hard-fought case, Unit cohesion survived afd despite dozens of comments by you at the afd which another user exposed as having nothing to do with whether Wikipedia should have such an article.


 * In sum, you demand that I create new articles fully-formed, like Venus on the half shell. Wikipedia itself disagrees with you, and your failure to understand that calls into question what you are doing here. If you don't want to support the principles on which Wikipedia was founded and the methods that help it thrive, I suggest you find something else to do. --Uncle Ed (talk) 04:34, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Ed: HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:21, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Please reread WP:Competency is required -- it explicitly provides guidance as to the minimum standards of competence required to write Wikipedia articles in a useful manner.
 * 2) Look at the deletion proposals/nominations that plaster your talk page -- much (most?) of what you write is generally considered to be worthless.
 * 3) Look at this user talkpage (and its history) again (as well as the linked-to AfDs) -- it's not just me -- dozens of editors are lining up to delete your articles.
 * 4) "In sum" your final paragraph is a gross misrepresentation of my request. I am perfectly happy with stubs, as long as they (i) are not hopeless WP:QUOTEFARMs, (ii) are an accurate reflection of reliable sources & (iii) demonstrate the notability of their topic. I would point out that all of these points are fully supported by Wikipedia principles, but any reasonable observer would see little evidence of them in your recent efforts.

On the contrary, I think you may take the community's decision not to delete Flemming Rule as a good example of "Precisionism gone wrong". Or to put it better, please stop using AfDs as cleanup.

I have created a lot of stubs lately, which you and a couple of others have plastered (to use your term) with prod's and afd's. Perhaps you haven't read DICTDEF lately, and so have forgotten: "One perennial source of confusion is that a stub encyclopedia article looks very much like a stub dictionary entry, and stubs are often poorly written."

To refresh your memory, you might want to take a look at Deletion_policy, which offers several excellent alternatives to prod'ing and afd'ing, such as refimprove, stub and merge. Using these will save a lot of everyone's time.

Most of what I write stays in Wikipedia because I'm a good writer. And I've started over 1,100 articles - again, most of which started small and got improved via WP:TEAMWORK. Get on the team, my friend. --Uncle Ed (talk) 06:05, 24 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Ed: NOTHING remains of your original Flemming Rule stub. AfD is therefore NOT being used for "cleanup" but for creation of a completely new article -- i.e. as de facto WP:Requested articles. This is exactly what I myself did on Blacklisted by History. Simply tagging (or merging, other than as a simple redirect, which you typically resist) is NOT appropriate where the stub contains NO SALVAGABLE CONTENT! Finally ... HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:22, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

DO NOT CREATE STUBS THAT ARE SIMPLY WP:QUOTEFARMS!
I'm giving this its own subtitle, because in spite of being told this repeatedly, you keep on doing this over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:22, 24 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Don't think I'm not listening to you. I simply disagree. And I'm using your own criteria to disagree with you.


 * Both cases you cited are great examples of people pitching in to fix an article which is (I don't mind admitting) probably just as stubby, malformed and in need of a rewrite as you said. It's precisely because these article were placed on AfD that they got the attention they needed.


 * What part of "you used afd for cleanup" don't you understand?


 * I don't object to you or anyone else cleaning up what I start. I just think the process would go better if you'd use the right tags. Which I don't want to have to keep telling you and telling you and telling you. Maybe less time dropping tag-bombs, and more time rereading the hints and tips on collaboration, eh? --Uncle Ed (talk) 06:29, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

===The "part of 'you used afd for cleanup' don't [I] understand" is the part where the remedial work DOES NOT meet any reasonable definition of "cleanup" in that a COMPLETE REWRITE is required, which leaves NOTHING of the original article=== Which definition of cleanup covers this burn to the ground and start again procedure? HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:54, 24 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Actually I was referring to Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions, a section I recommend reviewing. When I say things like "AFD is not cleanup" I am sort of assuming it is a well-known maxim (philosophy) hereabouts.
 * Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions pretty much covers what you've been lambasting me about. One would think you had never seen it before: "messy and poorly laid out" & "not referenced properly" could be paraphrases of your own writing, no?


 * If you like we can go over the way Flemming Rule retained its original structure when cleaned up after the afd. This diff illustrates the fact:
 * named after (kept almost word for word)
 * Louisiana incident
 * Claudia Lawrence-Webb's 1997 claim


 * I appreciate the complete rewrite, even if a vestige of the original is clearly visible after the evolutionary process. I don't mind having my contributions mercilessly edited. --Uncle Ed (talk) 07:17, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

January 2012
Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Shoshana Grossbard-Shechtman, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. The template clearly states: "This biographical article relies on references to primary sources or sources affiliated with the subject ". The only sources you cited in this article was Grossbard-Shechtman's former employer ("affiliated") and a paper she co-wrote ("primary source"). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:35, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, that was a former a employer? I didn't realize. And I had no idea the tag referred to the paper she co-wrote.
 * By the way, you don't have to state it as a general principle - I already know about not removing "fix" notices without solving the problem. That would be like marking a software bug as "resolved - cannot reproduce" instead of calling up the user and finding out why it doesn't work when he tries it.
 * You gave me the answer I wanted in this edit summary, thanks! --Uncle Ed (talk) 06:40, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I would hit you a WP:TROUT and tell you to get a clue -- but what'd be the point? Even a blue whale would appear to be inadequate for the task. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:46, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) You also "already know" that you're not meant to create stubs that are simply WP:QUOTEFARMs, but you still keep on doing it.
 * 2) The fact that she was (is?) affiliated should be blatantly obvious from (i) the fact that they did a potted bio of her (organisations don't tend to do this for unaffiliated individuals) & (ii) The fact that the page was prominently titled "Research Fellow", indicating that this was (is?) her position there.


 * Well, you know, Wikipedia is a big place, with many editors, all with their own opinions on how to do things. If you continue to give me clues about how to make the first splash in the pond something "hook-worthy" rather than something you want to throw back in the water, then I'll continue to improve. I hadn't heard of the concept of a "potted bio" before, but I'll keep it in mind from now on. Thanks.


 * Turning our attention from fishing to farming, I agree with working smaller portions of quotation into the article text, or both. As you and others show me examples of this, I'm happy to learn from you and follow your lead. With the Flemming Rule article, both quotations I provided got reworked this way. There's more about this at Quotations, but I hope you don't object to the number of quotations I sometimes supply, or think that there's some arbitrary limit. --Uncle Ed (talk) 07:01, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:19, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Quotes should only be used sparingly, not pervasively -- so no I cannot "show me examples of this" -- as the whole point is not to do so unless you have a strong reason to do so.
 * 2) *The best that I can suggest is that you simply take a look at a wide range of FA articles and see how they use them.
 * 3) *There is no hard and fast rule, but generally anything beyond 5-10% quotation would be considered excessive, and beyond 50% would definitely merit a tag.
 * 4) *Flemming Rule currently contains no quotations (unless you consider "Louisiana Incident." to be one)
 * 5) "Potted bio" is a colloquialism for a short, generally rather slanted biograhpies produced by a publisher/institution/etc for their authors/publicly-visible-employees etc for publicity purposes.

Welcome!
-- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 18:27, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Ed Poor/welfare
User:Ed Poor/welfare, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Ed Poor/welfare and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of User:Ed Poor/welfare during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:50, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Race in hip hop (2nd nomination)
I've decided to delete the article. Since you suggested a merge, I'm just dropping a line saying I'm happy to provide you with a copy of the deleted content if you want to perform the merge. Deryck C. 21:46, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, thanks. User:Ed Poor/Race in hip hop would be good. --Uncle Ed (talk) 21:49, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Per your message
Under siege by Deletionists

A number of articles I created recently have been subjected to "prod and Afd" attacks. To me, this looks like a misuse of process, if not disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. One of the three or four contributors doing this even made a Formal Request to me, that I stop creating new articles until I could meet (his personal) standards; he's cherry picked non-policy norms while ignoring others such as:
 * It does not mean perfection is required. Articles can be improved in small steps, rather than being made perfect in one fell swoop. Small improvements are our bread and butter.

I've created over 1,100 articles in the last 10 years. Some, like Intelligent design, have become very good or featured articles. But nearly all of them started as just a sentence or two, with or without a couple of references. I have been relying heavily on WP:TEAMWORK to propel the completion of such articles.
 * 1) The initial version of the ID article would most likely not meet User:Hrafn's standards, and actually contains an error (ID does not identify God as the designer; but there's controversy over this point).
 * 2) Lee Daniel Crocker  and User:GregLindahl point out that ID is not considered falsifyable.
 * 3) I incorporate this idea a bit more smoothly here: Scientists generally consider it unscientific, because it is not falsifiable.
 * 4) In version 18, the key point is added: it could only be an intelligent force, not random mutations
 * 5) User:Dmerrill (still here after 10 years) does a major summing up.
 * 6) At this point Dmerrill says it's "getting to be a good article"  (it compares and contrasts Intelligent Design and Darwinian evolution, although no one has noticed the small persistent error).
 * 7) An IP editor begins to correct that mistake, which I had accidentally made worse (although it's a controversial point)

Bear in mind that this is all within the first 48 hours of the article's existence. It's hardly gotten any better in the last 10 years. Although we have more detail, especially on opposition to ID, nearly all the major aspects are mentioned. The only defects at this early stage are:
 * the designer is specified as God (my mistake); mainstream ID theory leaves the designer's identity open (could be space aliens as Richard Dawkins said)
 * no mention of "irreducible complexity" (then a red link)
 * Possibly not a defect: no mention of dispute between ID proponents and opponents over whether ID is a subtype of Creationism

As you can see, this is the way I've always operated at Wikipedia. I've relied on my fellow contributors to jump in and work with me. I've almost never tried to create a finished, standalone article all by myself.

I don't always take on major popular topics. Sometimes I've recognized the need for an article split. 1973 Chile coup, one of the first uses of WP:Summary style (see History of Chile.

The idea that anyone can or should create a complete Wikipedia article on the first go is silly. It's certainly against our original tradition, and arguably against current standards. But I'm finding that I must spend an inordinate amount of time defending new creations, rather than building them. This leads to a catch-22 where articles I don't defend get deleted too soon, but defending articles takes time away from building them - which in a vicious circle makes them weak and vulnerable to attack.

What's the best thing for me to do? --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:41, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Check out Dispute resolution, particularly the "Discuss with the other party" section and "Dispute resolution requests" information if you think you've been treated unfairly. I'm not really into giving advice regarding these matters; my interests are more about articles and improving the encyclopedia. Regarding the examples you've provided, consider adding to the talk page of the article(s) in question.


 * You are to be commended for the significant contributions you've made. Northamerica1000 (talk) 22:22, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Abdullah II of Jordan, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Culture of peace and Intolerance (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:54, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Book of Mormon characters
I think the page needs to exist BECAUSE I made a search for just this topic and received a mess of unhelpful results. Usually, the correct (desired) result arrives on the top of a search, even if the phrasing of the search does not match the article's title. This time what I was looking for (nor the article it would most likely have been confused for) did not even appear in the first page of results.

I did follow your suggestion and add the musical as well to the page. Thmazing (talk) 19:15, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Okay, what can I do to help? I'm not dead set on deleting the page; I just want what's best for our readers. --Uncle Ed (talk) 19:19, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I think it's okay now. I just didn't want to remove your warning (even with the changes) without talking about it first. I don't want to come off as, you know, hubristic or something.


 * Just went to look as I was typing this and someone else has already removed it. You should check it out though and see if you feel satisfied. Thmazing (talk) 00:30, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

IITAP marked for speedy deletion
Hi Uncle Ed, can you view a page I created today and if you agree with the content, defend it against speedy deletion? International Institute of Trauma and Addiction Professionals I don't think this page is promotional. I wrote it to be informational as a supplement to the Certified Sex Addiction Therapist and Sexual addiction pages. There are 17 references - including Newsweek, the APA, and several newspaper articles. I don't know what else would have to be done for it to be approved. Any ideas?TBliss (talk) 04:23, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That was fast! Thank you for your sober reasoning.TBliss (talk) 04:38, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I see you removed the tag--see my further comments on my talk p, and at Talk:Certified Sex Addiction Therapist, which is the proper place for further discussion, as what I have suggested is a merge, along with the removal of general material about sex addiction.  DGG ( talk ) 05:02, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, in fact I also suggested a merge (on TBliss's user talk page). No seed for either IITAP or CSAT to stand alone, right now. They will serve the reader better as sections, anyway.
 * I'm busy with List of articles related to the Sun now, but if the merges involve too much heavy lifting, I'm available tomorrow. :-) --Uncle Ed (talk) 05:07, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. what I think I might need is more in the nature of consensus; I don't expect to get to it till probably Sunday. The amount of promotional material needing rewriting is getting overwhelming. I support good PR agent writing, but so little of what we see of it is good. Had I not felt so overworked, I should probably have suggested it instead of the deletion tagging.  So much of the two articles is duplicated that the actual merge is not likely to be that difficult.   DGG ( talk ) 05:18, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Scientific study of religion, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cults (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:44, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to ARS
{| style="border: 2px solid #CE2029; padding: 6px; width: 80%; min-width: 700px; background: #FFFAF0; line-height: 20px; cellpading=30" align=center Hi,, welcome to the Article Rescue Squadron! We are a growing community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to identifying and rescuing articles and content that have been nominated for deletion. Every day hundreds of articles are deleted, many rightfully so. But many concern notable subjects and are poorly written, ergo fixable, and should not be deleted. We try to help these articles and content to quickly improve and address the concerns of why they are proposed for deletion. This covers a lot of ground and your help is appreciated!
 * colspan="2" |

Mass deletions
can you explain these mass deletions? Pass a Method  talk  13:01, 7 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Sure. If you refer to the edit summary about the the article split, and check out the main template in the article, you'll see that I didn't "delete" anything at all. In accordance with Summary style, I moved the entire "Controversy" section into another article; then I reduced the size of the section so it's quicker for the reader to get the main points.
 * Controversy: This section is bigger than the whole rest of the article - should use WP:Summary style
 * Controversy: Forget to name the article split differently. One reader thought both articles wore on the same thing; the split is just about the controversy


 * The full text of what I moved is at Ground Zero controversy. Please read Talk:Park51 or Talk:Ground Zero controversy for details, and thanks for asking! :-) --Uncle Ed (talk) 15:36, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Consider joining the Article Rescue Squadron WikiProject

 * I don't know if this invitation was a joke, but obviously you are a legend. I created a history of the ARS, User:Milowent/History_of_the_Article_Rescue_Squadron, and your 2005 deletion of VfD is noted in it.  You may be interested to note that in the current discussion Wikipedia_talk:Article_Rescue_Squadron the question is whether AfD participation has dropped so low that AfD is in serious trouble.  cheers.--Milowent • hasspoken  21:12, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I assume the invitation was serious; I don't think Northamerica1000 was around 7 years ago, when "we all knew each other" and the consequences for fooling around weren't monumental. Then I was a big frog in a small pond, now I'm just one of tens of thousands.

But AfD process does have some problems, especially those who used it for cleanup. Their watch word: "Fix it in a week, or it's gone forever." I had a series of run-ins with Hrafn and 2 or 3 of Hrafn's buddies last month. It was tided over when ARS helped.

Having 3 million articles doesn't mean we've made an encyclopedia. How many "good" articles do we have? I mean, by our own criteria? --Uncle Ed (talk) 21:51, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh yes, we have tons of crap, no doubt. AfD doesn't improve much because 90% of what is crap is still notable, but AfD for cleanup noms are a problem.--Milowent • hasspoken  18:57, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not really sure where to comment on this, but this isn't just affecting AFD. MFD and other discussion areas have also experienced a noticeable drop in participation. Speaking as to what many former editors have told me off-wiki, many people have simply given up on trying to make any sort of large, meaningful content contributions. According to them, bullying and games have become the norm here and many people don't find it worthwhile to try to contribute when whatever they write can be "deleted" on the whim of a very small group of individuals. I myself haven't expanded or written a new article in a very long time, despite the fact that I have a huge number of in-progress drafts off-line in various stages of being written (I've kept them around because while I'm not planning to work on them right now I can always return to them later). My own reasons for becoming far, far less active than I once was are documented in detail at the top of my talk page. To put it simply, Wikipedia is in a pretty bad state right now. Many experienced contributors are disillusioned and/or have left, new contributors aren't sticking around (while there is a steep learning curve, many probably don't stick around due to the same reasons veteran editors are leaving). The real problem seems to be Wikipedia as a community does not seem to know how to deal with the large influx of bullies and social outcasts (aka Facebook and Myspace "rejects") who have flocked to Wikipedia because their behaviours don't allow them to fit in at true social networking sites. --Tothwolf (talk) 13:47, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Tothwolf. I read about your saga a little bit; sorry to take so long to reply. I have a real life!

Your analysis is spot on. Some of the same problems are mentioned by "Truth in Numbers", a documentary about Wikipedia. The only thing I can suggest is that we band together and help each other.

If we see bullying, we can intervene. Back in the day, I used to be pretty good at stopping personal attacks. Apparently one of the keys, here, is not to 'talk back' as this can be misinterpreted. It only seems to work if an "uninvolved party" wades in. --Uncle Ed (talk) 15:43, 7 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I actually hesitated in posting what I wrote above because I wasn't really sure if this was the place for it and after getting the brush-off when I've brought up some of these community problems in the past, I've wondered at times if I might just be completely off-track.I wasn't aware of that documentary and it sounds like something I should check out.Some bullying is pretty easy to spot and take care of. With my experience, I think where things really went wrong was that the bullying was initially more of a "stealth bullying". The guy had over time discovered just how far he could push something while pretending to be civil and pretend to be the victim. Unchecked, his bullying later evolved into full fledged cyberstalking, especially after he found that unlike his past targets on Wikipedia, I didn't give up and leave. It wasn't until after he was blocked and began making sockpuppetry threats that I really began to dig and managed to uncover many of his past usernames, IPs (along with them his former places of work), and even his IRL name linked from one of his past accounts (which in turn led to a whole lot more disturbing information about the guy).I think the real turning point may have been the August 2010 AN/I where I was just about finally ready to leave Wikipedia. In that AN/I post I linked to the "Down the Rabbit Hole" material which I had drafted on another wiki in March 2010 while blocked by Sandstein. The community discussion in that AN/I led to one of the individuals involved (but not the original instigator) to further lash out and try to game the system by filing an ArbCom amendment request, which needless to say didn't turn out the way the filer had hoped for.The thing that still bothers me though, is that even though the individual responsible for the harassment and cyberstalking was finally blocked, the ordeal left my online (not just on Wikipedia) reputation damaged. On Wikipedia, I still have those bad blocks in my block log history, and despite the past ArbCom case having been mishandled on many levels, the case pages and the erroneous decisions are still right there and have been repeatedly scraped and copied to other sites. Off-wiki, certain individuals have tried to attack and discredit me by linking to that past ArbCom mess.Even though ArbCom later tried to put a stop to some of the harassment in that last amendment, the draft by Shell Kinney didn't make it explicit that I hadn't instigated or done anything to either of those two individuals. Worse, the person who had initiated the entire thing starting in May 2009 was never sanctioned by ArbCom. This led him to believe that had had "gotten away with it" and in turn further escalate his attacks before he was finally blocked.In the past ArbCom has shown a willingness to go back and review and correct stuff such as they did with the Matthew Hoffman case (Shoemaker's Holiday), and the statement ArbCom made can be found here. Several times I've considered approaching ArbCom about my own experience, but I've never done anything with the notes I had begun to compile. As I alluded to in the last section here, thinking and writing about this stuff is extremely unpleasant. It really goes far beyond that though. Due to that bullying and cyberstalking, I've suffered from PTSD. For quite awhile just thinking about that mess could cause panic attacks. The more I write and talk about my experience though, the less it bothers me.With the block log and ArbCom case mess, I would also never be able to pass RfA. While many of the tools are not really of any interest to me, one of several tools which would be of great value to me would be the ability to edit full-protected templates. Overall there really aren't all that many editors who can write complex code such as this. Of course, given the state of RfA, I might never pass anyway since I'm not "highly popular" FA writer.This turned out to be a much longer reply than I had intended but hopefully the material will be of some positive use to someone. --Tothwolf (talk) 19:54, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Definitions of science
I've replaced your quote collection with a redirect to Science. You seem to have cherry picked (?) quotes from a college class notes page. Vsmith (talk) 11:21, 8 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I was just getting started. If the Science article explains the topic better, that's fine. --Uncle Ed (talk) 13:45, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe build it in userspace and develope it better before going "live". The article title seemed like a topic for Wictionary to me. Vsmith (talk) 16:01, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * While I'm here :) ... I've replace the quote template thingy on Lewis Thomas and Gaia hypothesis with a straightforward blockquote in each. The lead in your template included links the were redundant in the articles and left out links that would've been useful. Plus, I think you need a reference for the Gaia article stating who made the observation of similarity or whatever. Added a cite needed for that reason. Vsmith (talk) 16:01, 8 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I bow to your superior expertise, but I thought having the quote in thomas-gaia would support fixing the quote in one place, and having the results appear in both articles via transclusion. Your call. --Uncle Ed (talk) 20:15, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Index of religion-related articles (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Atonement


 * Religions of the ancient Near East (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Atonement


 * Sexism in academia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to NOW

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:58, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Illegal guns


A tag has been placed on Illegal guns requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Thetechexpert (talk) 00:36, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

February 2012
Please refrain from introducing inappropriate pages to Wikipedia, as doing so is not in accordance with our policies. For more information about creating articles, you may want to read Your first article; you might also consider using the Article Wizard. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Thetechexpert (talk) 00:39, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * LOL, I have created over 1,000 articles at Wikipedia. Check out my user page for a couple dozen that were AfD'd or prodded just because they started off too small. You might want to read Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions next time you're tempted to slap someone with a clue stick, just because you're not satisfied with their first 10 minutes of work. --Uncle Ed (talk) 00:44, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Ed, why don't you wait to create articles when you actually have sources and content to add? Creating a one line article with no sources is not appropriate and numerous editors have requested that you stop doing this. Creating one line stubs that other editors have to fix for you is not a great feat, create a viable article with actual content.  He  iro  00:55, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Numerous means you and Hrafn? What about what policy says? And the article had more than one line, plus a source. If there's anything in Starting an article I forgot to do, other than hat-tagging it with newpage, please let me know; I would be happy to userfy the page till any such errors were corrected.


 * Of course, you already heard me tell Hrafn all of this, so I wonder if you're really serious, or just having fun busting my chops, eh? --Uncle Ed (talk) 01:07, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I have been to that article, it has no sources. It has a collection of see also that is longer than the article and one external link. Right now it is a one line potential WP:SYNTH or WP:OR stub.  He  iro  01:10, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * But since you asked, see Starting an article, particularly 2, 4 and 6. Or furhter down in the next section of things to avoid "A single sentence or only a website link. Articles need to have real content of their own."  He  iro  01:14, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Effort to Delete The Trix Page
I agree with your opinion about The Trix -- but have a different view of some of the other issues you raise in several essays. So I thought I'd mention them. One of deepest confusions on Wikipedia is between notability and reliability. You suggest that wiki-notability is proven by the existence of reliable sources, but not so. Let me explain what I'm driving at.

in the sciences, there are hundreds of areas where the "reliability" of the source is beyond doubt, and yet the issue is so minor, so technical, and so obscure that it is completely non-notable. A real example I engaged with was a group of Wiki articles where each one was devoted to a single species of a beetle, and each one was supported by a thoroughly "reliable" taxonomic reference. Just because this beetle has reliable sources does NOT make it notable, not one tiny bit. The eager editor who had created the articles said to me that ALL organisms are notable! Well, not so... no matter how "reliable" the sourcing is, no one except a few beetle experts has ever heard of this creature -- and no one else cares at all. So the species of this beetle -- it lived in the jungles of Guatemala, if memory serves -- are not notable no matter how reliable the sourcing is.

The converse holds as well. There are topics of considerable notability that have few wiki-reliable sources or at least few obvious sources. Examples include many areas of fan interest, including soap operas, Harlequin romances, and related pop-culch material. These topics get lots of blog-level attention, often very detailed labors of love, and yet none of the sources are wiki-reliable. There are sometimes workarounds for those problems, but the workarounds can sometimes be hard to create.

We have forgotten, I think, the original reason for the notability criterion. It was designed to prevent people from writing Wiki articles about their cat, their darling cute little kitty-cat Medley the Kitten. The idea was that "Look, Medley the Kitten may be cute, but she is not NOTABLE." In brief, the idea was to limit the coverage on Wikipedia to genuinely significant, important, or "notable" facts and events -- and Medley the Kitten is NOT one of them.

And that provides a tool for using Google searches in establishing notability. "Medley the Kitten" will get three hits, all on Medley's owner's website -- and nothing else. But a Google search for The Trix -- to return to the example at hand -- got me something like 367,000 hits. And that means a LOT of interest "out there" about this component of the Winx universe.

Why is that important? Because Wikipedia is read by those people, not merely by a few Wikipedia editors, but by people who want to know something about one of their favorite topics, whatever that might be. Those readers are our clients, so to speak, and Wikipedia must speak to them. Most folks, I am guessing, use Wikipedia to look up things they have forgotten or never knew, like Benjamin Franklin's birthday, or to find out more about their favorite soap opera or band or whatever. So when we see 367,000 Google hits on a topic, we are not allowed to dismiss it by saying it is "non-notable." It IS notable. And then OUR problem is to find reliable sources for this topic, not lazily sweep it under the rug with a contemptuous sneer. So we ended up solving the Guatemalan beetle problem with a single short article about the genus that listed all the species that before had each had their own article. Much saving in space, much economy of thought -- and a better article.

So the relationship between notability and reliability is not as simple as it might seem! I hold that its is nearly always preferable to improve an article, and not delete it -- compress, rewrite, and the result will be much more appealing to our primary clientele, the readers "out there."

Timothy Perper (talk) 20:36, 12 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for that very thoughtful message. I'll need some time to ponder it. For now, I seem to recall that "many Google hits" does not imply notability. You're talking about popularity, eh? --Uncle Ed (talk) 23:18, 12 February 2012 (UTC)


 * "Popularity" isn't a very useful term, in my experience. "Donald Duck" is both popular and notable but it's notability is less in the millions of US readers who have liked Uncle Donald than in the wide-ranging influence of the Disney studio and its styles on many other US and world comics. "Notability" necessarily includes the notion that something has had a large effect in its own universe, whatever that is. The "noir style" in film, for example, may be very popular among one set of film-goers and boring-as-rocks to another, but that style has influenced a wide range of film makers. The result is that when one tries to write an article on "film noir," one has to select the audience one is writing for -- enthusiasts OR doubters, one or the other because one cannot do both simultaneously. And since these two groups of people do not like one another, they each try to co-opt the term "notable" to serve their own purposes and try to deny the use of that term to their opponents. I have some 35+ years of experience as a scholarly editor -- I mean on the mastheads of a number of scholarly print journals (read my user page for more details if you're interested) -- and am frequently struck by how complex these issues really are. It is not a simple matter of finding a few "reliable" sources and claiming notability has automatically been established! I wish it were that simple, but it isn't. Timothy Perper (talk) 01:55, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Value of monogamy
Dear colleague: I acknowledge your request. Thank you for asking me to continue with wikipedia. I will think about it, in part because you are asking in a way that tweaks my conscience, and in part because I think you may be right. That said, I have NO vested interest in the article, it just seemed kind of thought-provoking and kind of neat when I stumbled on it in the AfD list. But I didn't want to make it into a Crusade. I have profound reservations about the polite, nice but seemingly culturally insensitive attacks on the article, and the crushing negativity of many of the comments. More generally, I have to confess to occasionally finding the "rules" and in particular how they are being applied to have ridiculous consequences, to the degree that they are abusive. I did go to the Rescue Squad page. I followed their 10 points. I missed the link to the actual resource team even though I tried to find it. I also had the apparently wrong impression that Userify, which I have never done, would leave that person without the collaborative energy that I think would be needed on something like this. I will go away for a few days, cool off, see what is decided about this article, and potentially be amenable to assisting on it, or userifying it and working gradually on it going forward if I can see taking it on with the good faith expectation of really having enough oompah to devote to it. FeatherPluma (talk) 06:02, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Reconciliation (theology) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added links pointing to Atonement and Humanity


 * General Baptists (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Atonement

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 18:47, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Pulp fiction
Thx. :D (Tho not actually necessary. :) )  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  23:47, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Daylight savings time overlap
Hi, I suggest that the article you created, Daylight savings time overlap be add to Daylight saving time as it would be a great addition to the article, but does not need a new page of its own. Dream Field  Arts  2:11, 25 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Actually, that was my intention. Feel free to do the merge yourself ... I was too busy the past hour to get around to it. --Uncle Ed (talk) 02:16, 26 February 2012 (UTC)