User talk:Gordonrox24/Archive 1

'''This is User:gordonrox24's Talk page Archive1. Do not make changes. Thanks!--gordonrox24 (talk) 12:55, 13 April 2009 (UTC)'''

Nationmaster
I saw your question on Sandstein's talk page, and decided to drop a quick response: I don't have personal experience with www.inquirer.net, but it looks fine. Nationmaster isn't, though: it uses Wikipedia as a source for much of its content, so it's off-limits as a source for Wikipedia.&mdash;Kww(talk) 04:32, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * See this for more information --DFS454 (talk) 09:45, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * You wanted to know about Nationmaster being a reliable source so I gave you background information:
 * It described it's origin as a copy of wikipedia and thus "Most educators and professionals do not consider it appropriate to use tertiary sources such as encyclopedias as a sole source for any information".
 * It further says "You may not replicate, modify, reproduce, publish, distribute, display or transmit any portion of this web site, except as permitted in this document." so you can't use it anyway.
 * It was a good faith reply .--DFS454 (talk) 11:53, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Victor Mitchell
Gordonrox24:

How do you feel about a DISAMBIGUATION page for Victor Mitchell? LP-mn (talk) 00:07, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

To respond to your message... No, I can't say he's the same OR a different person. I just BELIEVE he's not likely to be the author. LP-mn (talk) 00:11, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Why the hesitation? I don't know of any rules to stop us, AND if they ARE one and the same person, then the disambiguation page can always be edited to redirect to the one correct page. LP-mn (talk) 00:24, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Your wiki-career
Hi Gordonrox24, please take this as friendly advice. Looking through your edit history, I don't see where you've been properly welcomed. You can review some of the links at W-graphical. I'd really strongly advise you to spend some time in article space, so that you can understand just how difficult it is to make major improvements to articles. You say you've spent lots of effort on the Roblox piece in userspace, but even so it is still very stubbish.

You say that you are far too busy working on that stub, yet at the same time you insist that other editors drop what they're doing to fix an article because you say there's something wrong with it. Don't you think that's a little unfair?

If you spend some time editing articles, you may also learn how consensus works. Mainspace articles and edits get reviewed many times by many people. The J-A Bombardier article was created in 2004, you can bet it has been reviewed by many people beside yourself and I don't see anyone else deciding it should be deleted. Further, the standards in 2004 were not the same as now as far as demanding inline sourcing (or any sourcing at all in many cases). There are many many thousands of articles which might be judged inadequate by today's standards - but that doesn't mean we should just delete all that work. No. We should improve it. That's how encyclopedias grow.

Looking at your recent activity, I see you applying CSD tags to several articles, which are mostly declined. Then you place a prod tag, which mostly gets removed. That means that you are spending your valuable time making work for other people, who then spend their own valuable time removing your tags. Please understand that we all are working very hard, not just you. But most of us don't try to make work for other people, instead we try to fix the problems we already know about. Believe me, there are tons of them (I have around 50 on my list right now) - but the answer is not to delete them, it's to fix them. The big danger here is that you will enthusiastically tag an article for prod and it won't be on a current editor's watchlist, and some valuable content will be deleted because you are not properly following policy and custom.

Please do slow down and apply more of your efforts to improving mainspace articles. You will learn a lot and will have more credibility when you decide that articles on important historical figures should be deleted because of arbitrary criteria you've decided on. Actually, editing articles may convince you that indiscriminate delete-tagging is not the way to go in the first place. Franamax (talk) 23:19, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Moved here from my talk page for coherent discussion, per my preference. Franamax (talk) 01:12, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I know very well how consensus works. Thank you very much. I dislike you manner of assumption. Yes, it is stubbish, and it is even tagged as so.


 * Proposed for deletion. Meaning it will be reviewed be an administrator and put to consensus vote. If it is then decided the article should stay, then so be it. Only after I listed that article for deletion was it remotely improved. It has a long way to go, and I am not willing to do it, and until now; neither has anybody else. Am I mistaken in saying that work on Wikipedia is voluntary. I am making work for nobody. Proposing articles that do not meet Wikipedia's standards and that nobody is inclined to improve seems quite logical to me. My edit history and what I spend my time editing in of no concern to you.--gordonrox24 (talk) 00:24, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You dislike my assumption that you may need some friendly advice? That's not a good sign. I'm trying to help you, not attack you.
 * Proposed for deletion. Perhaps you should read up on what WP:CSD templates are and what the prod template is. In the first case, it is reviewed by an administrator under the speedy criteria and either accepted (summary deletion) or declined (which many of your CSDs have been), but no consensus "vote" applies. In the second case, the prod tag may be removed by any editor who finds it inapplicable. Again, consensus doesn't come into play, rather editorial discretion applies and administrators have nothing to say about removal of a prod tag. You may be thinking about articles for deletion, which is a completely different process that I haven't seen you try yet. Further, when you say "consensus vote", you may be confusing consensus with voting - in general we don't vote here on Wikipedia, we discuss and make decisions based on strength of argument as it relates to our policies and above all our content.
 * As far as making work for people, sorry, yes you are. You're placing CSD tags which admins have to review and decline; you're then placing prod tags which editors have to review and remove; it's great that articles get improved in the process, but as I tried to explain, everyone here is already working every minute to improve articles, so all you've done is deflect their efforts to your priorities. Take a look at the contribs of the editors who have tried to respond to your concerns. How many of them have only 100 or so edits per month? And yet it is you who says you're too busy to take the time to improve articles - again, does that seem fair?
 * And unfortunately, your edit history is of concern to me if I think you're editing disruptively - then I have a duty to keep an eye on what is happening, to prevent damage being done. And that's what I'm trying to do - give you friendly advice and help you get better results from your enthusiasm.
 * GR24, I'm really trying to help you here, it's disappointing that you would say that you dislike my approach. You will need to get used to constructive criticism here and learn how to work with people who try to reach out to you. There are many more editors with much less patience - but I'd rather see you stick around. If you don't like me, then maybe you could consider getting adopted or just ask User:BillCJ who commented sympathetically in the Bombardier thread - he's way more experienced than me. There are hundreds of people willing to give advice and help you out. I really hope you will draw on the resources we have to offer, rather than carve out your own path and learn all the hard lessons by yourself. Regards! Franamax (talk) 01:12, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

When an article is proposed for deletion, the users watching that article will, for he most part discuss what should be done, coming to a consensus. In this case, you will see comments like:

Keep: per my reason above.


 * Delete: I believe...

and so on. This is democracy, and is considered a vote.

I have worked with AfD before. Don't assume. If you look at my CSD history, I believe only one has been declined, and my PROD are only proposals, not in any way official. As you said, any editor can remove it if they feel it should be. User:BillCJ and I have worked together before. Take note of the other Bombardier pages, in which we used Consensus vote to move. I have no problem with you, I admire your great enthusiasm to keep watch over Wikipedia. I just don't like it when people assume another editor knows nothing.--gordonrox24 (talk) 12:26, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

War Draughts
Hey; you tagged this for CSD as "previously deleted in a deletion discussion"; I can't find the relevant AfD. Could you point me towards it? Ironholds (talk) 18:58, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No, but that CSD category is only to be used for pages previously deleted through A/MfD ("deletion discussion" not "previously deleted") rather than pages previously CSDd or PRODed. I'll retag it with a prod per WP:MADEUP. Ironholds (talk) 19:01, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Moonlighting Soundtrack
Hi there, I have removed the G11 deletion tag you placed on this article, as I don't think it's blatantly promotional, just a few peacock terms that I have now removed. decltype (talk) 10:22, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Manmohan Singh
Hi, Manmohan Singh and LK Advani are two senior Indian politicians each trying to be elected PM in rivalry against one another. The wikipedia pages of BOTH have been effectively taken over by their partisans. The result is that the "criticism" sections of BOTH are never allowed to say anything genuinely critical. I have faced the same problem on the Advani site as I am now on this site. Kindly put my text back. This is not vandalism but an attempt to get wikipedia to be objective. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seekers2008 (talk • contribs) 22:37, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Manmohan Singh and LK Advani
Hi, thanks for saying you are reverting my text on Manmohan Singh.

I frankly do not know much about Wikipedia but I do know a lot about India's politics. The Manmohan Singh and Advani discussion pages makes clear that a LOT of people are disturbed by the way the pages have been taken over. I shall try to figure out how all this works and report what I can. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seekers2008 (talk • contribs) 03:25, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I have no idea who the editors of Wikipedia are or how they get allotted but someone also needs to do the same with the Advani page as I said... Sleaves? There is an election on in India and basically politico have taken over their respective wikipedia pages. Seekers2008 (talk) 15:40, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I am impressed with this progress in the procedure I have to say. But obviously such an Administrator-opinion is based on "lack of domain knowledge" in computer-speak. I shall be happy to provide case-evidence for both sites -- please ask the Administrator to write to me if he/she wishes. Seekers2008 (talk) 22:06, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Pay attention, please
- When you see "OTRS" in an edit summary, please don't revert. See also, the talk page of that article where it is clearly stated that we have permission to use the copyrighted content. - Rjd0060 (talk) 22:29, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I am an administrator. - Rjd0060 (talk) 22:30, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It's quite alright. You're not the first person to do that lately. - Rjd0060 (talk) 22:44, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello i am a college student and have an assignment to create a page on wiki i have choose Eriogonum heracleoides for my article and it is due on tuesday. i am learing the ropes on wiki and thats why all the information is not there., please do not delete my pages until after next week at least and i still have much information to put on thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Barr1331 (talk • contribs) 22:22, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Same as section above
Please pay attention and don't revert good faith edits as vandalism. The awards sections in the actor infobox are obsolete, which means they don't show anymore. So there is no point in keeping them in the infobox. Garion96 (talk) 22:41, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Then you assume bad faith way too fast, not every large removal is vandalism. The parameters awards are removed from the infobox template, therefore they don't show up in the article anymore, therefore they are pointless to keep in the infobox. Garion96 (talk) 22:48, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Correct, you were not sure why and therefore assumed it was vandalism. That's a disadvantage of the speed and ease of twinkle. When you're not sure, check and be sure. You might scare away newbie editors otherwise. Garion96 (talk) 22:56, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

No prob...
I'll sneak a peek. Sounds like one of these things just needs a simple deletion. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 23:37, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, I think I did it right. Please let me know if you need anything else deleted to make way for a proper page.  Have a great weekend!  --PMDrive1061 (talk) 23:40, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

You betcha. The article looks great! --PMDrive1061 (talk) 23:44, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Why would you do that?!
You moved Wayne Marshall (conductor) page back to Wayne Marshall, while I made perfectly clear why a more specific definition in needed, both in move comment and the the article itself.

In fact, I'm sure most internal links to Wayne Marshall are about dance hall deejay, not academic conductor!

You even deleted a disaim page for Wayne Marshall I've created, and you did so without any discussion.

You didn't even bothered letting me know. We are not going to have nice things that way.

Please move pages back, and restore what I've deleted. And please reply on my talk page. Thanks. Netrat (talk) 00:05, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Hm, if you are not an admin, how were you able to rename a page back over an existing redirect? And if it was another user who deleted these pages, just let me know his useranme, I'll post him the same message. Netrat (talk) 00:45, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Next, I was not talking about VJ or DJ. Wayne Marshall is a deejay, which is a very different thing! You see, a deejay is not a DJ, but a person who does Deejaying. Netrat (talk) 00:45, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Finally, I cannot see why Wayne Marshall (deejay) is less notable than Wayne Marshall (conductor). The Trinity (album) that has Wayne Marshall (deejay) song on it went at least 5 time platinum. That's right, they sold more than five millons of records. And how many people have ever heard about the conductor? Implying a conductor might be more notable is just elitist. Here's a link for you so you can see he's an established artist: http://allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=10:axfrxqtaldse Netrat (talk) 00:45, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Both Wayne Marshalls are musicians, so we cannot use Wayne Marshall (musician). We cannot use Wayne Marshall (classical musician) neither sicne according to your link, Wayne Marshall from UK has worked in both classical and jazz worlds. We can hardly use Wayne Marshall (pianist), since dancehall producers also play keyboards, and I believe Wayne Marshall from Jamaica is not an exception. That's why I used Wayne Marshall (conductor). If you can offer a better specification, go on. Stranger things have happen. It's not uncommon to see articles that have (footballer born 1972) in their titles on Wikipedia. Or, nore closely, there are two Lonnie Smiths. Both are musician. Both play funk music. Both play keyboard instruments. There only difference is one uses synths and another user an electric organ. That, and a middle name. Netrat (talk) 01:10, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I cannot find the sysop who made deletions via page history. Who was that? Netrat (talk) 01:12, 11 April 2009 (UTC)