User talk:Golfcam/Archive 3

Category:Articles with unsourced statements
I am preparing a new CfD (Category for deletion nomination) for the category known as "Articles with unsourced statements" (i.e., articles with one or more fact templates). Given the increasing demand for more sourcing, this cat could quite foreseeably ultimately grow to encompass the vast majority of articles on the wiki. In my estimation that's far too broad to be an effective category. But perhaps more importantly, this cat was reinstated virtually unilaterally by an admin after a successful CfD, after which another CfD was short-circuited with a very arbitrary "speedy keep" only two days after it was opened. I probably will file it this week, after I further research the background of the issues that attend to this situation. Some of the attending issues can be found in a recent exchange at Category Talk:Articles with unsourced statements.

Among the various issues involved are: 1) overly inclusive categories; 2) categories that constantly change in response to minor issues in individual articles (such as when fact templates are added and removed throughout the wiki); 3) the impossiblility of ever clearing such a massive list as new fact templates are placed and removed throughout the wiki; 4) the arbitrary nature of citation-needed templates throughout the wiki--there are many facts in need of citing, and such a category only accounts for those that have been actually noted as a template; 5) administrative truncating or short-circuiting of community process as happened with "Category:Articles with unsourced statements", and what properly is the range of admin discretion in closing AfDs, CfDs and DRVs prior to seven days under the "speedy" criteria; 6) how to properly deal with mistaken or abusive admin procedure after the fact when it is later discovered after having gone "under the radar"; 7) the related widespread use of User:SmackBot, which under an initial broad grant to use the bot for "various categories" has now managed to tag fact many tens of thousands of fact templates throughout the wiki as "February 2007", thereby letting us all know nothing more than that the bot was active in February 2007.

Thought you might like to know about it. Thanks, ... Kenosis 00:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * This category is now up for deletion review at the following location: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_February_20 . ... Kenosis 12:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Image:GaineyRanchGolf.gif
Hello, Golfcam. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:GaineyRanchGolf.gif) was found at the following location: User:Golfcam. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg, so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or    media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 04:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Your !vote on school notability may be ignored
Your !vote in favor of keeping the article Butte County High School at this AfD is at risk of being ignored by a closing administrator who may decide that your vote did not more thoroughly explain why the school was notable. While consensus and precedent are abundantly clear that such schools are notable, and there are many people think that all schools are notable, or that the existence of other school articles justifies retention of this one, we need to make specific claims that the specific school (or anything else you're !voting to keep) is notable to avoid the risk that an administrator will decide to ignore your vote. I strongly encourage you to review the requirements of notability and to consider modifying the justification of your decision to keep an article in this and any future AfD, school or otherwise. If based on your review of Wikipedia policy and a particular article you feel that the school is indeed notable, a variation of the text "Keep because notability is demonstrated by citation to multiple reliable sources that discuss the subject significantly", (as suggested here), will clearly state why you feel that the article meets Wikipedia's notability requirements. If you do not properly support your vote, you take the risk that your participation will be ignored if the closing administrator so chooses, as has already happened to !votes to keep an article at this AfD. Please review the WP:N policy and modify the justification for your !vote at Articles for deletion/The Bishop's Stortford High School if you believe that the article meets these criteria.