User talk:Editwondergirl


 * [[Image:Information.svg|25px]] Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits did not appear to be constructive and has been removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia.  72.204.47.141 (talk) 12:08, 17 October 2008 (UTC) (unintentional vandalism/test)

See edit history for Editwondergirl. As of today, the user Editwondergirl has made exactly 11 edits on Wikipedia, all of them notability tags on Meher Baba articles done during a 15 minute period on October 10, 2008. As of today there is no other history for this editor and no discussion prior to this entry. Nor was any discussion given on any of the article discussion pages. It would appear that the purpose of all these tags is not solely to improve the quality of Wikipedia -- but there appears to be some bias. One of the articles given a notability tag by this user was Meher Baba's flag when in fact there is an entire category for articles on rainbow flags representing various groups, and not one of the other flag articles received like-tags from this user. Based on these facts this 15 minutes of activity seems clearly geared against the man who the articles are about and not the articles themselves. So I am reverting these 11 notability tags for all things Meher Baba. 12:08, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

comment above by user 72.204.47.141


 * I think 72.204.47.141 lays out the case pretty well, and I agree with his/her actions. I do wish he/she would get a username. --nemonoman (talk) 12:42, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I will take the next step to have this question submitted to further arbitration. I intend to seek other examples where wikipedia could be better edited. The fact that I have begun with one catagorey is not evidece of bias. I have left intact many other entried connected with Meher Baba. The pages that I tagged were all themselves poor entries of various types. Several of them were closely based on the webpages of the centres concerned and had no npov sources. Others were in my opinion not noteworthy in themselves and should be considered for merging with the main entry on Meher Baba. Meher Baba himself is worthy of a Wikipedia entry but he is not a major enough figure to justify so many subentries - especially when some of them seem basically to be advertisements for various places to stay and all include no outside sources. The notability tag allows users to improve the entries concerned. It is not appropriate to remove the tag without further discussion rather than to improve the entries concerned - if indeed they should be improved rather than merged/deleted. --Editwondergirl (talk) 13:24, 18 October 2008 (UTC)


 * You make reasonable points, but your history suggests a different story:


 * All notability tags inserted with no discussion on the article talk page
 * all tagged in a matter of minutes
 * all re: Meher Baba
 * no other edits except for these tags.


 * Go ahead, ask for arbitration. I'll assume good faith and think you were really driven by Good Intent. Even so, your actions were extreme and POV -- no different than any drive-by, agenda driven editor.


 * I only saw this tag on one page that I follow; if I had seen your whole history, I would have done just what 72.204.47.141 did. Please ask for arbitration if you feel the need. I'll point out that since you have not followed the reasonable and typical steps of justifying each tag on each page, and then allowing for consensus to build, your arb request will probably not be well received. --nemonoman (talk) 14:24, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Editing done within a short space of time, but only after reading each entry carefully, deciding not to tag other Meher Baba related entries that were of higher quality, and checking of sources on each entry (which frankly did not take long, in some cases). I did not edit other pages because I did not find any in my areas of interest (New Age spirituality and classical music being high among them) that were so obviously in need of editing. If you have any suggestions, I'd be happy to take a look. And I intend to do further editing across a range of subjects, I assure you.

The notability tag allows for improvement of the entry and for further discussion. I don't think it is in order to simply remove it. I am holding off on arbitration to allow time for anyone interested to improve/merge the entries concerned. Take a look and you'll see that they could do with some work. Since you are commited to keeping them on board, perhaps you'd like to make a start. I would suggest that some entries could be either deleted altoghter, merged with the main Meher Baba page or related pages, or perhaps several of them could be merged together under a new Meher Baba-related entry. Apart from any other concern, some of the entries are unlikely to be found by anyone without pre-existing knowledge/interest. I came across one of them (forget which one) by accident and then looked through all Meher Baba related entries to see which ones, if any, did not meet Wikipedia criteria for notability. Merging them together, or with other pages, the content could I think attract many more users by making it easier to find. The new entry/entries would need to include more NPOV sources than is currently the case, however. Some of them are very poorly sourced. The articles concerned do not meet Wikipedia guidelines on a number of criteria - I suggest that you refresh your memory by reading the notability guidelines. I assure that I did so before adding the relevant tag. You will see that adding such a tag in order to alert other editors is one of the courses of suggested action in cases such as these. Another suggested course of action was to find multiple NPOV sources yourself. I tried, and I couldn't. (talk) 06:06, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


 * As I stated above, you have reasonable points. I don't disagree that many of the articles might reasonably be reviewed for notability. The place for making such points, however, is on the individual talk pages. Each article is notable, or not, individually, and it needs to be reviewed and notated individually. If you tag an article for notability, it is courteous to explain your reasoning on the article's talk page. It is courteous to try and build consensus. If you couldn't find NPOV sources, explain where you expected to find some and didn't. Please recongize that notability guidelines allow for some flexibility. Please allow your fellow editors to review your concerns, and some time to address them, if possible, either by improving the article, or offering reasons why alternate interpretations of the notability guidelines apply. Also, if you wish to imply more specifically that you are free of POV, tag articles concerning more than one category of articles (unless you are claiming a particular expertise on that category), and take more time to follow the tagging guidelines. Drive-by notability tagging is about one half step above pure vandalism, no matter how pure the motives of the tagger.--nemonoman (talk) 13:01, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I read the wikipedia guidelines very carefully, which read that putting the notability tag was a way of alerting other editors. The notability tag includes explanations and suggestions for further action. Other wikipedia pages that I have watched have featured notability tags without further explanation, which has caused no fuss and which has prompted relevant action. Removing a notability tag without action and/or notice is considered vandalism. Attaching a notability tag where the article is clearly in violation on Wikipedia guidelines is not. As I said before, I read the relevant guidelines and I have watched other Wikipedia pages over a long period of time. I do not consider that I am under any obligation to wait before restoring the tag and seeking arbitration, but I am nonetheless holding off for a few days to give other editors a chance to make changes, if they so desire. If you are agreement that at least some of the articles are not notable, then I suggest you go about fixing and/or merging or deleting them rather than shooting the messenger. --Editwondergirl (talk) 21:55, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I did not agree that any of these articles are non-notable. I agreed that your points in some cases are reasonable. A reasonable person might raise notability as an issue in That said, at first glance, most of the articles you tagged are, in my opinion, notable enough for inclusion, though many are pretty stubby. Stubby is different from non-notable, as I'm sure you've seen by reading the Wikipedia Guidelines.


 * I'll expect that if you read the guidelines, you'll follow them by explaining your concerns on the talk pages of the individual articles. A note on the Meher Baba talk page is not the appropriate place to express your concern, as a number of the editors of the articles you tagged have not edited -- and therefore probably are not watching -- the Meher Baba article Expressing concerns about Beloved God Prayer notability on Meher Baba simply makes no sense. No more than would expressing concerns about Jesus on Rama discussion page.


 * Follow the notablity guidelines correctly, expressing your concerns on each individual article's talk page, and see if your results are more to your liking. Follow the guidelines and I will react -- or not -- on the discussion pages articles on my watchlist. --nemonoman (talk) 23:14, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh come on. I came to those pages via the list of Meher Baba related entries. The "Beloved God Prayer" entry talks about its significance to Meher Baba and lists only Meher Baba sources. If it's not of interest to his followers and to readers of his entry, then I don't know who would possibly be interested in it. Somehow, I don't think you'll find that the entry of Rama is similarly dependent on information on Jesus. I considered a "stubb" tag but after looking on both Google and Factive (a media database) there do not seem to be sufficient NPOV sources to work from in expanding the entry. The notability tag allows for discussion and for drawing attention to such sources if they exist. --Editwondergirl (talk) 01:58, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Look, you're the one who started waving the arbitration flag. Arbitration is a big honking deal at Wikipedia, and most good editors take it seriously. If you say, arbitration, it suggests you feel that you have been seriously wronged. If you want to survive the arbitration process, you need to have right action and right process on your side. You haven't done things right. I've been an Wiki editor for several years. I'm telling you how things get done right. If you want to play these sort of games, you best learn the rules. At this point, your actions have made your intention unattainable. There's no need to tell me I'm an idiot, thank you. Other WP editors with more substance than you have done so already, and better. I acknowledge my inadequacy in all areas. But I have learned how to get things done. As you can't bother to take advice, you remind me more and more of one other editor I have dealt with. I tried to help her achieve her intent...she seemed to regard my advice as an insult. This interaction is becoming increasingly reminiscent of that one. So, since we seem to be getting redundant, which means saying the same thing over and over again, in a repetitive fashion, simply duplicating, copying and cloning the same stuff, etc., etc. I see not much value to hashing this matter any further. If you have some new data to add to the mix, tell me on MY talk page as I'm taking this page off my watchlist. --nemonoman (talk) 03:00, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 01:43, 21 October 2008 (UTC)