User talk:Epeefleche/Archive 3

redirects vs afd
For primary and intermediate school articles without any special distinction, I am a little surprised you aren ot just redirecting them to the district (etc.), The time to use AfD is if someone reverts the redirect, because then the matter is controversial. But I don't see the point of using it for routine cases--I have redirected a few hundred such articles over they years, with perhaps 1 or 2 complaints. or reverts  DGG ( talk ) 15:57, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You will recall we've discussed this before. If/where it's so clear, you may want to SNOW-close AfDs. Epeefleche (talk) 17:09, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It should be quite clear that  the vast  majority  of these AfD will  close as 'redirect' so  it's really  a waste of everyone's time to  have to  read them and paste our 'redirect' rationales time and time again. Ironically though, these closures do  reinforce the tacit  consensus. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:55, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You will recall we've discussed this before. If/where it's so clear, you may want to SNOW-close AfDs. --Epeefleche (talk) 18:57, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * With 131,000 edits and six years on  Wikipedia I'm sure that  you  have sufficient  knowledge and confidence to  summarily  carry out  redirects of non  controversial  school  articles. If  you  want  them redirected, it  might  not  save you  a lot  of work but  it  would certainly relieve the load on  AfD and the users who  have to  vote there. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:23, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You will recall we've discussed this before. It would save me work, btw -- if I believed it was the correct thing for me to do. I don't see any need for you to post again what we've already discussed at length before. Feel free to SNOW-close AfDs; I am supportive of that. But no need for you to re-hash here what I've already responded to. Epeefleche (talk) 05:34, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I fully  realise that  this has been discussed before, but IMHO the mass AfD activity  could be broadly  construed as being disruptive especially  when there is a perfectly  reasonable alternative. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:51, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I think that you are mistaken. And exaggerating.  I've told you, at length, why I think it inappropriate for me to redirect such articles. Why I do not think it is a "perfectly reasonable alternative."  You are well aware of that.  You don't share my view.  I, for my part, think that editors could be deemed to be disruptive for "stealth" redirects.  When that avoids the scrutiny, if nobody is watching, of even one other editor.  I'm also aware that those articles that I do not think should be stand-alone are thought by others to be appropriate for a stand-alone. And sometimes, as happened this week, they after AfD remain a stand-alone.  I don't think it is correct for you to try to bulldoze me -- or any other editor, for that matter -- into taking such action, for the reasons I've discussed with you at length, and in the absence of a guideline that says "don't bring these articles to AfD, but rather redirect them".  I also don't see the wonderful benefit you see in a redirect, where the target has no information of value to the reader, but that's a side issue and not of great import. I think you cause more work by redirecting PRODs of schools, or others do by denying PRODs of schools.  I also don't see why for years you avoid SNOWing such AfDs, and continue to do so until today, and have continued to not explain why (but no need to answer, as there is no need for you to post here again).  In short, I don't see you saying anything new, so I would urge you not to post on the same subject here again. At this point, its badgering, and non-productive. I've given you very long and considered responses over the years. Thanks. Epeefleche (talk) 06:01, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Another editor chiming in here: Each editor is entitled to decide themselves how aggressive they choose to act regarding redirects or deletions. I have chosen to support redirects of almost all primary school and middle school articles I see at AfD. I have nominated none and redirected none myself. That's just my way of improving the encyclopedia as I see it, without siding decisively with deletionism. I think that I am doing my part. I do not think it wise to criticize any good faith efforts to improve the encyclopedia. I never consider a good faith, well-reasoned AfD nomination to be disruptive in any way. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  06:09, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Speaking for myself, and I think also, we will only do admin actions that we know express the will of the community, and only on issues where we are not involved. I know I do not trust myself to interpret the will of the community in matters where I have a strong opinion; my role in such cases is that of any editor--to express m opinions and leave it at that. If I were inclined to arbitrary actions, I   would  simply ban you (Epeefleche)  from initiating school deletions but no matter how much I think it desirable, all I can do is try to convince you--and if necessary others. (Yes, it's true that those of us who take our ethical responsibilities seriously necessarily operate under rstraints, but that after all is the purpose of ethics.  It has always put the honest people at the merch of the unscrupulous, unless they can mobilize general opinion.  DGG ( talk ) 06:15, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, I am glad,, that you are ethical. Because I think that it would be a terrible thing to ban a good faith editor from nominating school articles for deletion. AfD should always be an acceptable alternative for editors uncomfortable with quicker deletion processes. I have given my attention, willingly, to a couple of thousand AfD debates. It is honest work. I do not complain about good faith AfDs. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  06:28, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I hate to pile on .... but I simply find it irritating having to paste my rationale constantly at these school afds (Yeah sure I don't have to vote but someone has too I suppose), I'm sure he's acting in good faith, Anyway my suggestion is simply to start redirecting perhaps slowly, & just work your way up, If you feel uncomfortable redirecting yourself simply stop nominating schools, Regards, – Davey 2010 •  (talk)  12:38, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * As I said before, I question whether "stealth" redirects are appropriate, as distinct from AfDs, speedy deletes, and PRODs -- all of which involve someone other than 1 lone editor taking action. I have seen enough !votes other than redirect at such AfDs (they pepper even the current AfDs), and even closes other than redirect (just this week, we've also had at least one no-consensus keep), to bolster my sense that -- for me, certainly -- it would be inappropriate to redirect such articles, just on the basis of my personal view.  So I choose not to.  Davey makes a good point--editors who don't wish to !vote need not !vote -- these AfDs typically close with more than the requisite !votes, when they do close. Also, editors are free to SNOW close AfDs that meet the SNOW criteria -- it is perhaps of interest that we rarely if ever see that happen at school AfDs. PROD (with a sysop exercising discretion to redirect) or speedy would lower the AfD count ... except that the community has decided that school AfDs should not go through those processes, but rather should have the community input of an AfD, which of course in itself cuts against the "let's sneak this by the community and erase the stand-alone through a redirect that perhaps nobody will notice" approach. I do think the Project is better for these articles not remaining as stand-alones, which is what prompts my school AfDs, which almost never exceed a couple a day. As to the ad hominem remarks further up the page, I'll simply ignore them.  --Epeefleche (talk) 15:58, 18 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Epeefleche, I think it would clarify things if you made it clear whether you were indeed nominating for deletion so the community should review it, or whether this is instead because you actually feel there should not even be a redirect? Neither is dishonorable.


 * More generally, I have several times proposed that we cal lAfD, Articles for Discussion, without the presumption that the intended end is necessarily deletion. This was actually approved by consensus a bout 5 years ago, but nobody ever got around to making the necessary changes in templates and procedures. The 2 subsequent times I've proposed it, therewas not quite sufficient consensus. Perhaps its time for another discussion.  DGG ( talk ) 16:47, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * DGG, I think we may well have had this conversation in the past. But in the event you forgot, when I nominate  for deletion I do so because I am of the opinion that the article should be deleted.


 * I often am of the view that a redirect is an acceptable alternative if the community deems it so -- under the rubric that "redirects are cheap" (though I'm not sure how cheap ... as we have lost tools recently because they strain the system, I'm aware that there can be a cost). At the same time, redirect is typically not my first choice in these instances, as I frankly question the "brilliant" logic of a redirect, as it quite often redirects the reader to a page that imparts absolutely zero information as to what the reader may be interested in learning. I also note that we don't redirect all manner of other subjects that we know "exist", but that are not wp notable, so there is an inconsistency in the "rally round the indirect" knee-jerk reaction. I often !vote "Delete or Redirect" at such AfDs started by others, under the same thinking.


 * That said, when I nominate a school for deletion, I do so because I think that would be an appropriate treatment of the subject, though where the community rallies around a redirect, even if it is not what I think preferable I typically find it acceptable. The main point for me, and one on which I believe there is the greatest consensus, is that there should not be a stand-alone of those articles, and that issue is addressed either way. What the AfD does allow, btw, is editor input -- and I note that within just this past week you yourself have !voted Keep on a primary/middle school AfD, availing yourself of that opportunity.... even where I personally thought that was not the correct result (though I never did get a chance to !vote). "Stealth" redirects of articles like that can easily avoid the attention of editors like you, and thus be redirected even if under the scrutiny of the community they would be kept.


 * I will also note that OUTCOMES is either outdated, or was incorrect from the outset. We do sometimes merge non-notable schools (which also gets rid of the redirect, so it satisfies that concern of mine).  But that happens, based on my observation over the past year or two, with much less frequency than our deletion of articles (which I know you will disparage as the product of wayward editors, but on this point we disagree).  The suggestion in OUTCOMES that merge is a more common outcome than delete at school AfDs of less-than-high-schools is simply a flat mis-statement. Anybody can look at the AfD closes, and ascertain this. For those who dislike deletions of NN schools, it is a bald mis-statement they may wish to perpetuate (and then point to at AfDs), but that of course would not be ... what is the word ... ethical.  Epeefleche (talk) 20:20, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I haven't seen these AFDs. I do occasionally work on school articles as part of my larger work on articles in the place where I live. Fairly recently, what started as a minor issue with one article soon escalated into several editors who are active on school articles performing "cleanup", which to me resembled something more like a solution in search of a problem. The pattern was all too obvious: continue to push the POV that notability is strictly black and white, that high schools are inherently notable and all other schools are inherently non-notable, any possible indications to the contrary or any prior efforts made in good faith to build the encyclopedia be damned. The end result? We have articles on high schools which aren't that terribly notable that serve little purpose beyond being a collection point for cruft. We have articles on defunct schools which don't reflect that fact, because the schools were so small and obscure when they existed that reliable sources pertaining to their closure are lacking. OTOH, I witnessed a slew of "merge/redirects" on middle school articles which were really backdoor deletions, replacing content of encyclopedic value with content more closely resembling "an indiscriminate collection of information". Watching this slavish devotion to policy/guidelines take precedence over what's credible or useful to the reader makes me wonder why I'm bothering to begin with. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 11:53, 20 July 2014 (UTC)


 * - It's not a slavish devotion to policy/guidelines. As  and I  have mentioned several  times, it's an aim  for consistency in interpreting  those policies. All  our  policies and guidelines have been agreed by  consensus. If  everyone had free reign to  invent their own policies on-the-fly, what  would happen then? (rhetorical  question). --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:40, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * To mirror your edit summary, I have no desire myself to argue this ad infinitum. "What would happen then"?  I'm well aware of the fact that content isn't read exclusively by the uninitiated.  I'm also well aware that people follow the evolution of content yet aren't actively involved in discussion and consensus building.  These are people in a position to influence perceptions of Wikipedia's credibility out in the real world.  I don't see "consistency" as helping that, as the organic nature of content building has long been a key to Wikipedia's appeal.   makes an excellent suggestion below, as "consistently" ignoring case-by-case notability only furthers that credibility gap.  The major problem I see with the idea is in further taxing active editors. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions  04:12, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, You seem to be under the impression we have been deleting school articles. I don't think do., except when they are particularly bad, or particularly incomplete or dubious in some other way such as copyvio, If there have been others, We should be able to work together to at least the extent of clarifying this. I want clarify this,   so could you   tell  me which ones they are?

I have never seen an argument from you or anyone else that it is better to totally delete school articles than to make a redirect/merge to a list for the district or town. if it is done uniformly, However, if you are going to take them to afd, where there's about a 10 or 20% chance that anything can happen, then I thin it will be necessary to see how much of a justification can be found for making as many full articles as possible  (of course some will always be notable or even famous, but by my current view it's about 1% of them. But if there s pressure to change the view in one direction, I can easily think of many reasons besides the ones I now use that the community will at least sometimes accept, and you and I both will be spending much of our time there. Is this really waat you want to do?


 * But i have a better suggestion: let us both together work for changing AfD to articles for discussion, to really establish the policy that all disputed merges and redirects can go there for final settlement, and that any close is acceptable, That way we at least wont be disputing the procedural issues, which will be a step forward. Howabout it.  DGG ( talk ) 11:22, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

.

Elementary schools
Say, why not just boldly turn those into redirects as you find them and haul them to AfD only if you get reverted? Even my copy-pasting a stock rationale seems a waste of time... Carrite (talk) 20:35, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's right for me, one editor, to do so on my own say-so. Other editors disagree with me often enough that a "stealth" redirect away from the community eye is not something I choose to engage in. Feel free to SNOW-close any appropriate AfDs. Or to support PROD (or speedy) of such articles, with the closer being free to redirect rather than redelete if the closer feels it appropriate. --Epeefleche (talk) 20:40, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Epeefleche, I'm sorry to  have to  post  here again  in  spite of your suggestion  that I stay  away, but  this is now a policy-related explanation. At this point, it's still not badgering, and and it's only non-productive if you  find the advice and policies hard to accept. If you are confident  enough  to  send articles to  AfD  on your own say-so, then from  what  you  have learned from  the  vast  majority of outcomes of the hundreds of AfDs you  have nominated, you  almost  certainly  by  now have sufficient  experience to  make appropriate redirects -  a much  less bureaucratic process - on  your own say-so.  Over the years not  only  I, but many other users have attempted (including ) to explain countless times (I have reviewed every single discussion) that  unilateral redirects are perfectly admissible.  There are clear recommendations in both guidelines and policies how some kinds of articles should be handled. It  is also  a major and significant exception (in  bold in  the policy) that school articles enjoy  additional protection from deletion  at WP:A7, which is not supposed to be interpreted that they  should therefore all be sent summarily to AfD instead.


 * If you think the article should be a disambiguation page, or a redirect to another article, then recommend "Disambiguation" or "Redirect". Do not recommend deletion in such cases. (WP:AFDFORMAT}


 * If the topic is not important enough to merit an article on its own, consider merging or redirecting to an existing article. This should be done particularly if the topic name is a likely search term. (WP:BEFORE).
 * In the case of schools a well  established precedent evidenced by  over 1,000 redirects strongly  emphasises these policies and guidelines.  You  can choose to  discredit  WP:OUTCOMES as an essay, but  it  is a simple report  that  documents, well, outcomes. It  is neither outdated nor irrelevant.
 * Many discussions and RfC have failed to  change either that  precedent  or the recommendations at WP:ATD-M and  WP:ATD-R (these are policies rather than just  guidelines). By  not  according  these policies due consideration, it  places a significant and unnecessary  burden on  the AfD system and the users who  have school articles on  their watchlists.


 * Snow Close test: Snow closes are somewhat  of a grey  area and should not  be made unless the outcome is almost 100%  certain - in  which  case again, the AfD would clearly  have been unnecessary, and in  which  case again, you  are also  aware. In  order to  preserve the guidelines, policies, procedures, and  precedents to  ensure that  the correct  consensus is reached, some users prefer to  !vote on  such  AfD rather than  attempt  a SNOW close (or any  other close). They  therefore cannot  close an AfD in  which  they  have participated. A misjudged snow close can create more bureaucracy than it was destined to avoid. A summary redirect does not and  neither is it a 'stealth' action.


 * The compromise I suggest  is that  you  stop creating these AfDs and/or agree  that  you  can indeed do  uncontroversial  redirects yourself,  and bring  to  AfD those, and only  those, that  do  have an extreme likelihood of actually  being  deleted rather than redirected. Therefore, rather than starting a community  discussion which  would use up  even more editor time, I'm asking  you  as friendly  as possible to  reconsider your stance on  non notable school  articles. Regards, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:13, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Epeefleche, could I suggest a way to handle this situation that doesn't involve AfD, but also isn't an abrupt and arbitrary redirect? Just put the following note on the school article's talk page: "I propose to redirect this page to Name of school district if no one objects. That is the usual Wikipedia practice for elementary and middle schools unless they have received an unusual amount of coverage to make them notable." After a week, if no one has objected, do the redirect. This is what I do and it works great - article redirected, no AfD necessary. You just need to be sure you keep a list of the articles you have tagged, so you can go back after a week and do the redirect. --MelanieN (talk) 14:52, 20 July 2014 (UTC)


 * , this seems a good practical idea to me. WP is NOT A BUREAUCRACY. Eppefleche, what you are apparently trying to do is not wrong, but it is confusing the issue, and I don;t see thep oint of continuing it when simpler means are available. .  DGG ( talk ) 20:21, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I only have a moment now, so I will read Kud's longer (though first) post later. Replying to Melanie (which replies to DGG as well), the problem is that I don't think it's right for me, one editor, to do so on my own say-so. The effect of a redirect is very close to that of delete (except that a knowledgeable reader can find the history, but I think those are few of our readers).  And for deletes, we don't allow stealth moves by a single editor -- either they are speedied (at least one other editor reviews, and takes the action of the nom), they are PRODed (same), or they are AfD's (same).  In each case, an editor other than a nom takes the action.  And in each case, after they are placed in a category that may receive review by multiple editors in addition to the editors following that article.


 * Your suggested solution is well intended, as it is not what you refer to as "abrupt and arbitrary" as a single-editor-POV redirect would be. But it still lacks the indicia of being in a "the community can view it here, and someone other than the nom will act on it" bucket that we have in speedy, PROD, and AfD.


 * Thinking along your lines, one way we could address this is to allow PROD of such articles (and by allow, I mean in practice -- our rules certainly allow it). The closer of the PROD could then either delete or redirect, or neither, as the closer sees fit.  That would address my above concerns. I would be open to considering doing that.  Epeefleche (talk) 21:40, 20 July 2014 (UTC)


 * It would be great  if you  would do  me the courtesy of reading my post as soon as possible because your reply  to  leapfrogs some of the issues and the discussion  will  soon  need to be taken somewhere else rather than turning  your talk  page into a debate that  has concerns for the broader community. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:13, 21 July 2014 (UTC)


 * My opinion is that turning a primary school article into a redirect isn't so very bold as that is the usual outcome, and nothing is destroyed, it is all in the article history. I've run across many, many of these articles both before and after the bit, and handled them the same.  Redirecting to the school district is much better than deletion at AFD, which is unlikely I admit, but time consuming nonetheless.  At least it gets the reader to the right general area.  As a function of what serves the reader's best interest, redirecting is better than AFD because of the consistency.  The same is true for we editors, as it is going to end up there anyway, so the path that uses the least amount of clicks by the least amount of people is best.  I just fail to see anything controversial in redirecting these primary schools, and you do us all a favor if you just do so on your own.  Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124;  WER  01:09, 21 July 2014 (UTC)


 * @Kudpung -- Hi. A few thoughts.  Apologies for this being an ultra-long post.  Much repeats what I've already written. But I wanted to clarify some that appears to remain unclear, and expand on it with ways forward that we might consider.

First -- I'm interested in hearing responses from Melanie to my post to her. Also, I appreciate her tone, which is a helpful one.

Second -- my suggestion/request to Kudpung as to badgering stands.

I've written repeatedly that if we had a policy that clearly stated: "Rather than bring lower-school articles to AfD, they should be redirected, without first being posted elsewhere (such as at speedy or redirect or AfD)", I would enthusiastically agree with such a policy.

One could, in fact, have such a policy for all articles that might otherwise be brought to AfD, or PROD, or Speedy, if the community so desired it. Or one could have a policy for certain segments of all such articles. For example ... malls below 500K sq ft in size, and baseball/basketball/hockey/soccer/football players that are not in the top league, and singers that do not have 2 albums by a major label. If the community reaches such a conclusion as to any such grouping, or all of them, along those lines, I would be happy to do so.

But we don't have that.

Furthermore, what you have told me is that the community cannot reach agreement as to a school notability guideline. That's why, I understand it, we only have the essay Outlines. Which you say is only a sign of how we handled past similar (in certain respects) school articles at AfD. And which, at least as to schools, is not even accurate, as it misleads readers as to the actual typical closes of school AfDs of primary/middle schools (you would agree, would you not?).

So, what lesson can I learn from your indication that the reason we don't have a notability guideline for schools is because the community could not reach consensus on one? My view is that if the community cannot reach consensus in this regard, it would certainly be less than appropriate for me to act as though it has a consensus, and redirect by stealth redirect (I would in general be against stealth redirects, but am even more so in areas where attempts to forge a notability guideline failed to garner consensus support).

If you would like to open up a community discussion to turn Outlines into a notability guideline, I would support that. This makes sense if you feel that Outlines reflects community consensus. If you don't wish to do this -- because you feel there is not in fact community consensus for such a guideline (which is I believe is what you asserted in the past), then of course we should perhaps tread lightly rather than make a King-has-no-clothes assertion.

Yes, I am confident in my bringing articles to AfD "on my say-so" that they are worthy of community discussion. To see if the community agrees with my assessment. But that is a far cry from your assertion -- saying that of course them I am comfortable that the community will agree with me. Often enough one or more editors, or the closer, do not agree with me to give me pause on making such a unilateral decision on that basis. That's a major problem for me, in taking on the suggestion that I make a "stealth" redirect (where only those of are watching the page, if any, see it ... and/or the page creator, often long gone in such circumstances, received notification ... but the community, which would see boards such as PROD or SPEEDY or AFD do not see it).

And that aspect -- not having the article posted somewhere (as we do at AfD and Speedy and Prod) where the community can look at it -- is to me a significant difference. And not having an editor other than the nominator effect the nominator's suggested change is another significant difference. These are two important safeguards IMHO.

If we are looking to reduce the bureaucracy, as I said in my post to Melanie, I'm happy to work with her to think of ways we can do that that don't require any editor to avail themselves of a process without the two safeguards we have in all other approaches that remove stand-alones: 1) posting the article somewhere where the community knows it can see it if it is checking for such articles; and 2) someone other than the nom effecting the change (whether it is a delete or a redirect).

That could take place anywhere. It could take place at speedy, with a sysop redirecting or deleting. It could take place at PROD, with a sysop redirecting or deleting. (I see that Kudpung has redirected such articles brought to PROD, for example, but that DGG has simply declined such articles at PROD, and not redirected them). It could take place on a to-be-created board, with a sysop redirecting or deleting.

Anyway, if I could use PROD, for example, which other editors check, and where a sysop ... and a person other than me ... makes the final decision, and takes the final action, that would work for me. And then those articles would not end up at AfD, reducing bureaucracy.

I'm also troubled, by the way, that there seems to be some undue and unwarranted pressure brought on editors who argue against Outcomes. I generally disagree with such editors. If the editors participated at any one AfD as a whole, however, they would likely be greater in number than those of us who afford some weight to Outcomes. And yes -- that means that the position that I support, though supported by history at AfD, and may be out-!voted if all those individual editors were brought together. They only tend to !vote on the AfD of the one school they care about. I think that Outcomes, btw, also misleads editors into thinking that more articles are merged that deleted, but I think otherwise Outcomes is accurate, and I think we have to work out what weight the community thinks we should give it and if it is significant as most of us who edit these AfDs heavily think it is. If we do have a meta discussion on whether Outcomes should be a guideline, I would suggest that if we want a result reflecting consensus (not just a result reflecting the views of 10 of us who frequent Schools AfDs) we should invite to it editors who have participated in school AfDs over a period of time. In just the past few weeks, I've seem a number of impassioned arguments, including those of at least one sysop of longstanding, against the use of Outcomes, and though I've typically been on the other side of those discussions, I think if we are to respect the community and not just ramrod a result the most active of us prefer, that would be the way to engage the community.

Schools by the way are treated more gingerly - when it comes to deletion - than other subjects. For example, while various other topics are subject to speedy, schools are not. Which of course militates in favor of not getting rid of stand-alones without the opportunity for community input, as described above.

I understand that others may be bolder than I am. And believe that for themselves redirect without community discussion, and without another editor performing the redirect, is fine. I've also seen editors lambasted for taking such action. Different editors can reasonably have different views, as to themselves, in this regard. But it is quite another thing to say "other" editors (or certain of the other editors) must redirect school articles. In the absence of a guideline saying that. But, as I said, if we had a guideline saying that, I would be fine with it.

As to my views on whether such articles should be deleted or redirected, please see my response to DGG above. Furthermore, I do consider merger. And I do consider redirect. I fully comply with wp:before.

As to the impact of turning a school article into a redirect, I think it is nearly as impactful as a delete. True, for the sophisticated wp editor, we can of course access article history. But obviously most of our readers are not so sophisticated. So where the impact on the vast majority of readers will be so great, I choose not to be so Bold. Just as we would not engage in "stealth" deletions".

As to the value of the redirect, I see it as exceedingly unlikely to tell the reader anything close to what he is looking for when he looks for the topic. I think it would be the highly unusual reader who would say "Oh wow -- this school is in district x, or city y, that's precisely what I wanted to know when I searched for it!" Still, even when I am of the view that delete is the more appropriate of the two, I am often of the view that redirect is acceptable, as it addresses the primary issue -- the fact that there should not be a stand-alone article.

As to AfDs I bring, please feel free to SNOW-close them. If the OUTCOMES consensus is as strong and meaningful as you assert, that should lead to most school AfDs by all editors in this area being SNOW-closed. The fact that you don't strikes me as odd. You suggest above that it would be fine to engage in the (what I call "stealth" -- as it is away from public scrutiny) redirect. But that you will not SNOW-close the same article ... because the outcome is not clear enough, or you want to establish some precedent? That makes no sense to me. If you want to SNOW-close a school article I nominate, do so. And I won't (unless and until I ever change my mind, which is unlikely) ever protest you snow-closing an AfD where most editors !vote the way you close it. That should reduce bureaucracy.

Also, if I PROD a school AfD, and you delete or redirect it, I similarly as above won't protest your action. That's because it will have been on a public board. And because another editor other than the nom will have taken action on it.

Anyway, I've -- in large part driven by what Melanie posted -- posed a number of suggestions above, and in my response to Melanie above that. All aimed at streamlining the system. All aimed at reducing bureaucracy. Without doing so in a manner that requires good faith editors to be Bolder than they legitimately feel they should be.Epeefleche (talk) 02:24, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Epeefleche, I understand your concern that you don't want to be the only eyes on the page, the only person making the decision. That is why I start with a note on the talk page. If there is anyone watching the article, they will come there and we can discuss what to do. Maybe they can improve the article to the point where it is notable, or sometimes I will just drop it on their assurance that they are going to work on it. If there is NOT anyone watching the article, that in itself may say something about both the importance of that school and the state of its Wikipedia article (which often turns out to be years out of date). After a week (or longer) has gone by with no response, I am comfortable redirecting to the school district, because 1) that is the usual consensus result, and agree with it or not, Wikipedia DOES work by consensus; and 2) it is easy to restore if someone later wants it back. Plus 3) I have helped to clean up and improve the encyclopedia without taking up anyone else's time over what is pretty much a foregone conclusion.
 * But if you are still uncomfortable about that despite all the people telling you it's fine to do it, I would suggest you do a PROD instead of an AfD, and say in your rationale or your edit summary "in lieu of deletion, consider redirecting to Name of school district ". That way it will be available for discussion for a week, if anyone cares to chime in, and the close will be done by someone other than yourself. However, don't be surprised if you find admins coming here to tell you "that's not what PROD is for, just redirect it yourself." Just as they are now coming here to say "that's not what AfD is for, just redirect it yourself." But if you really feel the need of more process, then a PROD would be less disruptive to the community as a whole and would involve the time of fewer people. --MelanieN (talk) 04:45, 21 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Melanie, thanks. Your suggestion in your second para would address my concerns.


 * As to why the first para approach does not address my two concerns, I tried to detail them above in my uber-long post. As I mentioned, the impact for the vast majority of readers is the same w/a delete or a redirect.  With deletes, we do always require the safeguards you indicate -- notice on the page and notice to the creator.  But we also have two other safeguards: that the act be noticed on a community board, where those in the community interested in those things can see it (rather than away of the eyes of the community, by "stealth").  And that a person other than the nom do the act (whether it be deletion or redirect). I prefer deletion, for the reasons detailed above, in those topics I nominate, but am open to redirect on them for schools even though that is not my preference. It's because your approach lacks those two safeguards, that I do not think it is appropriate for me to take that approach.  But your first-mentioned approach works for me, as it would provide those safeguards. (And if it were allowed on speedy, I would be happy to do it there, with the closer being able to exercise judgment to either redirect or delete as appropriate -- at least those are noticed on a board, and are closed by another editor.)


 * As to other possible improvements, that came up in the above discussion, I would be supportive of an effort to change Outcomes into a notability guideline. That would streamline discussion. Those editors who say: "it's just an essay not a guideline", and "it describes what we've done in the past but is not a description of what we should do now," are making reasonable comments that ... though I tend to be on the opposite side of them in the discussion ... could be best addressed summarily with a guideline.  And if the King has clothes, and there is community consensus that this past general practice should pretty much dictate the close of most school AfDs, then of course there would be consensus for the guideline.  Epeefleche (talk) 05:05, 21 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi Epee, I very much appreciate your  responding  at  length  (I know how long  it  takes to  write these things) and you  can be sure that  I  have read it  very  carefully  and several  times over. What  then however becomes fairly  clear to  me is that  you probably did not  read my  post  with  as much  attention, missed several vital points, including the references to, and links to  various policies, and other links. You  appear to have also  missed my  explanation for SNOW closes, and failed to  acknowledge the enlightenment I  have provided many  times for OUTCOMES - which  leads me to  believe that  you possibly  don't follow the outcomes of your AfDs.


 * I have repeatedly  demonstrated that  OUTCOMES is neither a guideline nor  a policy, nor  any  other form of recommendation, it is purely and simply a paper where where the  majority  outcomes are documented. The actual evidence for those outcomes is elsewhere for anyone who  cares to look. I  also  feel  that  your use of the word stealth is rather unguarded - it  makes those of us who  make these redirects sound as if we are a band of covert deletionists, which  obviously  we are are not; if we were, we would also be scouring  the 'pedia for articles to  delete and radically  producing serial AfDs, rather than saving  and redirecting  as many  as we can.
 * IMO, taking into consideration  the fact that schools are exempt from  WP:A7, PRODs are not  good for school articles - PRODS appear in  chronological  order in  the admin  control  panel, and AFAICS, just  get  deleted on  their expiry  date without much further ado. When that  happens, we may  well  be loosing potentially  useful  redirects.


 * Moreover, the impact of turning a school article into a redirect is therefore far less damaging  than PRODing,  or a deletion  at  AfD where the majority consensus  (as demonstrated in  one of the discussions in  your  archives) may lead to  a wrong consenus due tho !votes of users who  are less well  versed in  our  policies and guidelines.


 * I remain wholly convinced  that  where you  are well aware that 90% of your AfDs will conclude as 'redirect', the regular nominating  of dozens, if not  hundreds, of AfD in  this manner is disruptive.  I  will  address your suggestions and those of others for alternatives and/or changes to  policy  when I  have time, but  at  this juncture I and several  others are simply  concerned that  your mass producing  of AfD in  this manner is not  appropriate.


 * The current discussions on  your  talk  page are not  new, there are also  many  others in  your  archives  where I  also  had a lot  to  say  over the years, but  I  was far from  being  alone in  expressing  these concerns.If you  can't  see your way to  making totally  acceptable redirects ethically on  your own say-so, then I  urge you  to  be at least  far, far more selective in  what  you  send to  AfD. If  you  are still  unable to  accept  that, as your talk  page is quasi  private and as I  respect  that  and as the issue is to  much  to  be resolved here, I  will address this specific issue through a venue where the broader community  can be heard;  any  decision  they make will  be theirs and not  mine, and if the consensus falls  contrary  to  what  I  will  be proposing, I  will  not  be worried either -  what  I  and most  others simply  wish to  achieve is consistency in  the way  school  notability  is handled whatever the rules, regulations, policies, and precedents say, without  the rigmarole of persistent AfD, or yet  another long  and tedious debate (all  other have failed leaving  a tacit  precedent which  most  of us observe) to  get policies changed, and I  think  this can be done without  unduly 'badgering' or  embarrasing any good faith productive users or seeking  for sanctions.


 * In the interests of transparency  here is a link  to another discussion  which  is developing where you  are also  more than welcome to  join in, but  I  won't  be taking  up any more  space on  your talk page. Regards, --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:06, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

suggestion, especially as it is bolstered by DGG's above comment, is worth trying for seemingly less controversial articles. I've read all above posts, and my comments (many of which have not been responded to, but which I assume posters have read in turn; if I get a chance I will go back and title them for greater ease of access) address the issues. I'll think about this a bit more (but have limited computer access at the moment). I also think it worth addressing some of the meta issues I raised, and exploring a school notability guideline.Epeefleche (talk) 16:37, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Just one semi-related comment., I do patrol Prods, and have been doing so for years. I don't catch everything , but I do try to get there once a week and pick up the obvious -- for rescue or for transfer to afd or for speedy in the cases it matters. I notice from comments that some other people look also. But there is indeed a problem with admins who delete expired prods without thinking about the merits , just as there is with AfC G13s.    DGG ( talk ) 19:21, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Though I'll give it more of a think, I think Melanie's

Ecuador
If you read WP:BURDEN through to the end, you will note that it says that there are better ways to engage with your fellow editors and get citations added where missing. I have to say that you have not improved the encyclopaedia one iota with the deletion of trivially uncontroversial statements about sport in Ecuador. Why don't you just empty Sport in Evuador given that it contains no citations whatsoever? Your edits on Ecuador are a menace to the community. Atlas-maker (talk) 07:41, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry that your edit-warring on this issue in another article led to you being blocked. --Epeefleche (talk) 21:37, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * As did your block evasion. Epeefleche (talk) 16:56, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

CISG
Dear Epeefleche, first of all apologies if I am an absolute beginner in contributing to Wikipedia and especially to a talk page. So please excuse any mistake. Secondly, I think you removed a small addition to the CISG page saying that the Limitation Convention is about... limitation. The title of the treaty says it. Any person vaguely familiar with the topic will confirm it. This is like asking for a reference to the statement that the sea is mostly made of water: I can find a reference, but it seems excessive to look for it. PS: why you can message me and I can't message you? I am sure there is a reason... thanks in advance for all the excellent work. Tottorimu (talk) 19:32, 31 July 2014 (UTC) Tottorimu
 * Hi. First, welcome.  I appreciate your contributions.  As to references, especially in regard to the very precise subjects that you appear inclined to edit in, it's best to assume that what is obvious to you may not be obvious to the reader who lacks your background.  So, it is always best to add a ref. Otherwise, an uninformed reader cannot tell the difference between the veracity of what you add and what a mistaken editor (or vandal) adds.  Always assume your reader is not familiar with the topic.  As to messaging, I'm not sure what you refer to.  You are leaving me a message here.  You could alternatively (and this is more typical) have left me a response below my post on your talk page.  I also have allowed (though not all editors allow it) for emails to be sent to me.  You may wish to read wp:v, and to look at or possibly follow or join WikiProject Law. Best. Epeefleche (talk) 19:44, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks again Epeefleche. I knew you would make this argument and I have little to respond. However, please can you help me in finding out what you have removed? Is it really the sentence on the CISG page? It seems there now. And I found your comment on another page (Limitation Convention), but all the text seems there. Sorry for bothering so much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tottorimu (talk • contribs) 19:56, 31 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I was actually about to remove uncited material, but received your message first, and have held off to allow you to address the matter. Best. Epeefleche (talk) 19:58, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

OK thanks again. I took corrective steps on both pages. Will build the Limitation Convention page little by little -- not many sources on that one, though, but will do my best to diversify citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tottorimu (talk • contribs) 20:19, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Daniel Lavoie "Awards" section
Hello User:Epeefleche. Could you please explain why you removed the "Awards" section from article as unreferenced Daniel Lavoie when the awards are referenced in the text of the article? Thank you in advance for your response.Paroles2000 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:33, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I didn't notice that each of the awards had an appropriate inline reference in the text of the article. But if they did -- why would be redundant, listing all two dozen or so awards twice? As mentioned, this article -- while better now -- has been rife with apparent COI editing and puffery; it is getting much  much better, but we still have to keep an eye on inappropriate efforts to pump it up. Listing two dozen awards - if RS supported - twice in the same article would fall into that category. --Epeefleche (talk) 22:00, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Pakistan Media and Arts
Hello. I've come to you because of an improve tag you recently added to article Kara Film Festival. This is an article amongst many I believe (rightly or wrongly) should probably be deleted, but the issue is much larger. The issue is that obviously no one is really looking at the growing number of non notable articles around the (naturally) self promoting arts and media about Pakistan and Pakistanis. My problem is that I know about it because I am involved and that means a conflict of interest. I know whether someone is notable or not because of my work. What I would really like is not to take any direct action at all myself (If I do more than a couple I will get outed and I will get persecuted by the individuals concerned with self promotion) but rather to periodically supply a list and details of non notable articles to an experienced editor that can take appropriate action in this area, a kind of partnership. I'm not assuming that this would be your fine self, but if it isn't you then can you link me with someone who might value such lists of articles that devalue this fine encyclopedia? PakArtPatrol (talk) 12:46, 1 August 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gar2bong (talk • contribs) 20:13, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Shehzad Roy's page
I am unclear as to why you have deleted the portions I had added to the Shehzad Roy page. All my edits were well cited from reliable newspapers like DAWN, Tribune etc. I want to avoid an edit war so I would appreciate it if we could discuss your concerns here. I would be happy to incorporate your feedback into my future edits. Thanks!PKRedits (talk) 20:23, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi PK -- have you ever edited wp before, under a different name or IP address? --Epeefleche (talk) 20:32, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I see that you've been indef blocked. --Epeefleche (talk) 21:33, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Notability lists
Except that a lot of the bluelinked articles in many notability lists make no mention whatsoever of the place, school, etc., so a bluelink alone is untrustworthy.--209.122.114.237 (talk) 15:32, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * That's true. The same with refs, however -- they may also fail to support the text.  And, of course, categories have neither. --Epeefleche (talk) 18:13, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Notability Guideline for 'Hammad Husain'
Hi Epeefleche. You have written on the BLP article Hammad Husain that "the topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for biographies". I re-read the guideline and the section on Creative Professionals (point 4) states: "The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.

This article clearly meets (a) and (c) as Hammad Husain has designed the most published, most well-known (and even controversial) building in Pakistan: the farmhouse of former President Pervez Musharraf. However, that is not his only achievement that merits his inclusion into the list of BLP. He is a well-known and successful architect of the country. Compared with the handful of Pakistani architects in the article List of Pakistani architects, including Yasmeen Lari, Habib Fida Ali, Abdur Rahman Hye etc, Hammad Husain has had the most number of views in the last 30 days.

In addition,his article has seen vandalism, profanity and attempts by people to delete it. Hammad Husain seems to generate quite a bit of interest. The article surely needs improvement in citations and style and that will be done shortly.

Thank you for your input and understanding.Strafeme109 (talk) 22:41, 14 August 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Strafeme109 (talk • contribs) 22:11, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. What independent reliable sources state that? Tx again. Epeefleche (talk) 22:54, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

ANB discussion
There is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Archive265 that concerns you because you were recently involved with one or more of the related Articles for deletion/History of the Jews in Nepal, Deletion review/Log/2014 June 30 (History of the Jews in Nepal), Talk:History of the Jews in Nepal. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 08:56, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

ISIS footnotes
Thanks very much for correcting the date formats in the footnote wikitext. I used to do it regularly but got tired of doing lazy editors' work for them! I used to convert their bare URLs for them as well but have given up trying to keep up with them. There seems to be no way of enforcing editors to compose footnotes properly. I have made a list of bare URLs on the Talk page here, so if you would like to convert those, please do! Even the footnote notice I put in at the head of "References" is being ignored. Very frustrating. --P123ct1 (talk) 10:41, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Problem with your "fixed dashes using a script"
Please immediately stop using this and revert your edits. Edits like this have inserted emdashes in citation urls (which will break the link). There's no need to change any dashes inside citations. You also changed dashes in section titles (line 234) which can break redirects and other links.~Technophant (talk) 17:19, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Correction, I do see dashes changed inside URL's however there could be problems causes by changing section headers.~Technophant (talk) 17:24, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * please would you clarify: i do not see any urls being broken by the script. all the other changes appear to be addressing non-compliance with MOS:DASH, which is how it's supposed to be. Any section links broken are regrettable but MOS compliance is necessary; the collateral damage should be fixed if known. --  Ohc  ¡digame! 01:57, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I can't see any hyphens changed in URLs in the diff above either. Applying MOS:DASH to of citations is entirely proper, as are various other changes in that situation (lower-casing all caps comes to mind). Further, applying MOS:DASH to section headers is a good thing, regardless of incoming REDIRECTs. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:20, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I can't see the problem. But Technophant, thanks for raising it, and will you please do so again if you notice anything wrong? Tony   (talk)  07:32, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Michael S. Smith II
Hi, I've been helping clear the backlog of merger proposals, and so I saw that you proposed Michael S. Smith II be merged into Kronos Advisory back in July 2011. There was never any objection to this, but you didn't go ahead with the merge... did you change your mind?--NukeofEarl (talk) 16:30, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * No ... that's just not on my radar. Feel free to address it yourself, if you think it makes sense.  Tx. Epeefleche (talk) 18:23, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Are you familiar with
This tool ? -- PBS (talk) 21:32, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Greek Canadians
Hi Epeefleche - you ran a script on Greek Canadians to change the format of dashes, but I have reverted to a previous version of the article to remove some copyvio content added prior to your edit. Can you please revisit Greek Canadians and re-run your script? Thanks,  PK T (alk)  12:57, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Brian Kim DYK
I put in my 2 cents worth on the Brian Kim DYK, but as an editor just going through the DYK process for the first time (see Template_talk:Did_you_know I hesitated because of the QPQ guideline. Let me know if I can help further. — Grand&#39;mere Eugene (talk) 20:11, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Kamara James
I'm good with whatever you suggest regarding the image. Great work on the article too - I was sure it was a hoax about the death as originally it came from a non-notable blog.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 11:32, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Brian Kim
— Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:59, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Shabbos App for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Shabbos App 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/Shabbos App (2nd nomination) 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 high-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 notice from the top of the article.

Removal
Regarding this removal. I mean, it is already in the infobox, so why insist? Debresser (talk) 17:31, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It is manifestly appropriate for the text of an article on a software app to reflect who the developers are. It is so typical, that as you point out it is also called for in an infobox.  The fact that an infobox (or a lede, for that matter) reflects something is not cause for its removal from the text of the article.  An infobox "summarizes key features of the page's subject." And: "Purpose of an infobox. When considering any aspect of infobox design, keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize key facts that appear in the article." It summarizes what is in the text. It does not serve, typically, as the go-to place for that information, leading to the removal of the information from the text.  The same with the lede -- we don't remove material from the lede, because it is in the text and/or the infobox, because the lede also is a summary of the text. I'm sure we would not go around deleting everything that is infoboxes (and ledes) from the text of articles ... for precisely this reason. --Epeefleche (talk) 18:20, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I see. Thank you. Debresser (talk) 18:41, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Please comment
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(sports)#Bullpen_catchers Alex (talk) 05:43, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

About Sanki King
I still don't understand your issue with those sources. Does the reliable source have to be something coming from a newspaper only?? What I know about the guidelines is that the sources shouldn't be from the social media or from blogs. Now these 3 links aren't blogs they aren't social media sources or self published material. Then what's the problem? Maybe there is something that I don't know about reliable sources that you can shed light on. Youlin magazine is a very popular online magazine which is a collaboration between China and Pakistan, Sneakerness is one of the biggest sneaker conventions in the world and Campus Diaries is a collaborative online community of Indian-Pakistani writers and other creatives. They themselves can be verified if you google them. What I want to understand is that does Reliable source means NEWS? Or something that was published in a newspaper only? IF yes then why people use CNN & BBC sources when they are news channels and don't publish any newspaper etc. These 3 links are .com links and are interviews of Sanki which means Sanki is exclusively mentioned in them. Really looking forward to your reply. SameStruggle (talk) 13:25, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you and please take a look at this. This is directly from the wp:rs "Definition of published: The term "published" is most commonly associated with text materials, either in traditional printed format or online." These 3 sources you have issues with are "Online". Also "Context matters: Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in the Wikipedia article." These 3 sources directly support the information in the article. Also "Biased or opinionated sources: Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject." I hope this clears any misunderstandings and/or confusions about the sources that you were/are unsure about. Peace SameStruggle (talk) 22:43, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Recent edit to Rasmea Odeh
Please stop changing my text, specifically the diction I use when describing Odeh's sexual abuse/torture by the military while in Israeli prison. This information was not mentioned at all on her Wikipedia page before I added it. This is a shame, given that it is a significant part of the story, particularly as it relates to her claim of a forced confession of her involvement in the Jerusalem bombings, and that it is upon this false information that her current immigration fraud trial is based. The way it is written at this time, regardless of intent, seems to give credence to one side over the other, by stating that she merely "claimed that her confession was obtained after days of torture and sexual abuse by the Israeli military while she was in custody." This is unacceptable, as it could be interpreted (wrongly, to be clear) that these were simply "allegations," instead of a true account of what happened. Given Wikipedia's policies on neutral point of view, I have edited the page to reflect this. Why you continue to revert the text back to this non-neutral state baffles me, but my point remains the same.

Additionally, regarding my so-called "unreliable sources": Mondoweiss is a news website devoted to covering American foreign policy in the Middle East, and In These Times is an independent, nonprofit news magazine. These fit under Wikipedia's definition of reliable sources. They are not blogs, and the articles I referenced were not opinion pieces. Both groups have journalists, editors and proofreaders to ensure reliability. I always ensure, before adding sources to Wikipedia, that they meet the proper criteria. Please stop removing my sources and calling them "unreliable" without doing your own research first.

67.91.131.190 (talk) 14:46, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

"the lede should repeat/summarize the most salient parts of the body"
Yes, the most salient parts -- not all of the parts! I left the salient parts. I don't see why nearly everything has to be said twice in one article. What's the point of either the lede or the body if they say the same thing? Also lame is that we again have a "citation needed" in the lede whereas there are actually citations in the body. Yeah sure, the article is better now with all of that crap back in. Whatever.

You know, this is precisely why editors leave Wikipedia. A well-meaning editor spends some quality time trying to make an article tighter and more readable without removing any information, and a speed-editor going for the record for number of edits uses a one-click utility to undo this work instantly, making the article worse again. I know my saying so won't influence your opinion, looking at the above discussions (in which you are always "right"), but I had to say it anyway. Good day and I hope not to cross paths again. PorkHeart (talk) 22:42, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, the salient points. If the lede were a summary reflecting the salient points in the article, even if it looks as though it is repeating those salient points, that is what it should be doing.  It should not be of course a repeat of the entire article; that would not be a summary.  But if the summary, much shorter than the article, repeats not all the points but rather the salient points, then the "redundancy" of that repetition is not cause for deletion of salient points from the lede. Epeefleche (talk) 00:29, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

November 2014
Please refrain from abusing warning or blocking templates, as you did to User talk:Lisa. Doing so is a violation of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please use the user warnings sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. ''You can't use warning templates if you yourself are involved in the conflict. You will get yourself into trouble if you continue abusing such warning templates, and don't think these templates can help you get your way in conflicts. Someone just might be watching.'' JudeccaXIII (talk) 19:10, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing me to the wp introduction page. Actually, what you say is incorrect.  You write that I've abused warning or blocking templates, because as you assert: "You can't use warning templates if you yourself are involved in the conflict." That's untrue. Epeefleche (talk) 02:23, 15 November 2014 (UTC)