User talk:Joseph2302/Archives/2015/February

Archived Discussion
That page has a lot of unsorced content, but to remove it all would be blanking pretty much the entire page, can you help me with finding sources for the content? Weegeerunner (talk) 22:01, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll try and help, although I have absolutely no knowledge on the subject (I only found the page through looking through recent changes for possible vandalisms). Hopefully Google has some sources on the matter. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:05, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Discussion on this has moved to Talk:West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette.

Welcome!
Hello, Joseph2302, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
 * Introduction and Getting started
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! – Gilliam (talk) 13:15, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

WP:NOTSTATS
I recognise that you've only been on Wikipedia for a couple of months, but that really doesn't excuse you from reading WP:NOTSTATS. To save you the effort, the relevant passage reads: "Long and sprawling lists of statistics may be confusing to readers and reduce the readability and neatness of our articles." That is why I have reduced the stats tables to just the top 10 points/try scorers. This is something that people at WP:FOOTY and WP:CRIC have no problem with, so why is it a problem for rugby? You said the 2015 article should include all the scorers because that's what previous season articles did, but now they don't. What's your rationale now? You just want all the scorers listed? Well, policy doesn't support that. – PeeJay 11:49, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * This isn't a matter that only concerns rugby articles. Rugby articles are not a law unto themselves, they still have to abide by Wikipedia's overall policies, and that includes WP:NOTSTATS (which I have explained above). As for missed conversions/penalties, they don't contribute positively to the score, so they're not worth mentioning. If a missed kick affects the game so much, we need to start writing prose accounts of matches rather than just expecting readers to subsist entirely on stats tables. – PeeJay 11:54, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Don't assume I haven't read WP:NOTSTATS, that it insulting to think I'm stupid enough to have not read and understood . Having a list of 20 points scorers is not a violation of WP:NOTSTATS, as it's no harder to understand than a list of 10. Missed conversions/penalties are important, and I believe these are far more important and notable to the game than say who the TV referee is. Why should you decide what content there is, without a consensus? Joseph2302 (talk) 12:11, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Interesting point about the TV ref, but ultimately a straw man argument. Anyway, it's not me deciding not to include missed kicks, it's the BBC, ESPN and various other websites. If anything, we already provide far more stats than we should. After all, this is an encyclopaedia that is meant to be built on prose, not facts and figures. – PeeJay 12:16, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Because writing in prose is so much better for the reader. Clear statistical tables are much clearer for the reader. However, if you want I can convert the rest of the points list into prose, since according to you that would make it acceptable. Simple statistics are an easy way for readers to find information, surely an encyclopedia should be encouraging ease of access. In fact, WP:STATS clearly says that "In cases where this may be necessary, (e.g. Nationwide opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2012), consider using tables to enhance the readability of lengthy data lists." I believe these statistics necessary, so they should be in a table. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:29, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I believe you've intentionally misunderstood the point of WP:NOTSTATS here. Also, you say I'm editing without a consensus, but when WP:NOTSTATS backs me up, I don't need a consensus as I'm following policy. What policy are you following? – PeeJay 12:36, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't believe WP:NOTSTATS says this at all, and I also believe accusing me of intentionally misunderstanding is harassment, as it's questioning my judgement and abilities. I think that you're just a manipulative person, who wants everything done their own way. WP:NOTSTATS says that statistics may be necessary, and if shows they should be in a concise table-this is exactly what has been done. Instead, you're arguing that statistics should be replaced by prose. If you wanted prose so much, why haven't you bothered to edit the offending statistics into prose? Joseph2302 (talk) 12:43, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not arguing anything of the sort. For the overall points scorers and try scorers, I'm saying a table that almost covers the full screen is excessive and probably a violation of WP:SUMMARY. I'm sure there are people in the world who are interested in who scored the 13th-most tries at the Six Nations (heck, I'm probably one of them), but I'm able to see objectively that most people probably don't want to have to wade through a large stats table and are only going to be interested in the top scorers. Obviously a prose account of every single point scorer would be fucking stupid. Where prose would be useful, however, is in giving our readers an account of each match, the story of which may not be immediately apparent from raw stats; missed kicks do not add to the score, therefore they shouldn't be added to the rugbybox template – I'm not even convinced we should be saying "(2/3)" but that's a minor inconvenience in my book. Reliable sources don't note the missed kicks in the match summary, only in prose match reports. Do you understand now? – PeeJay 12:54, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Okay, if reliable sources don't want penalties/conversions, then I withdraw my complaint about them. I still believe I'm right about the Statistics section though. Also, RfC on 2015 Six Nations Championship page, so I consider the discussion on this page finished. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:03, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikibreak
No one's saying you're stupid, but I don't think it's unfair to say you are inexperienced on Wikipedia and therefore don't know all the rules. That's not stupidity, it's just a fact of inexperience. If someone tells you there's a rule against something you're proposing, you can't take that personally. Learn from the experience, learn a new rule and work to make yourself a better editor. None of us are perfect, after all; I know I'm still learning a few rules (and I still don't abide by some of them either). – PeeJay 16:56, 15 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi, it's honestly not really you, I've had frustrations on other pages. Like yesterday, I was on Benedict Cumberbatch, added details (with citations) of his marriage, and got reverted saying it's too premature. Meanwhile, users on talkpage were complaining it hadn't been added, citing the same sources I used (both newspapers and his own Twitter account) And again on Ukraine Special Forces, it's clearly POV and I wrote about it on the talk, but got complained at for adding a POV tag. And no-one has responded on Talkpage, except to tell me I'm wrong for adding the POV tag. And lots of other similar experiences. And I'm fed up of having to constantly revert 1999/2003 World Cup hosts that people keep vandalising (by saying it's only England & South Africa). Also, the Cricket World Cup/Attendances thing is annoying me, since people won't stick to the rules of not putting attendances in yet. I want a consensus, but everytime I look at the page, someone has added in the attendances without consensus. Basically, I hate being reverted for no reason, and I hate the fact people don't listen to consensuses.
 * I definitely think you actually have a point about 2015 Six Nations Championship, even if I don't agree. The main reason I'm fed up is coz of the pointless reverts/arguments with no justification. I came on here to help, not to have arguments where people think they must be correct, even when they're not. To sum up, I accept criticism (like with you), but not in the form some other people (not you) have been doing it. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:11, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, no worries. By all means take all the time you need. Sometimes I feel like I should take a break from editing, but the articles on my watchlist go to pot if I'm not around. Or maybe that's part of the problem. On a sidenote, you've raised an interesting point about the 1999 and 2003 Cricket World Cups: they were promoted as "England 99" and "South Africa 2003", so although a few matches took place in other countries, surely England and South Africa are the countries that should be considered the primary hosts. My point is, the ICC awarded those World Cups to those countries, and then it was their choice to award a few matches to Wales/Scotland/Ireland/Netherlands/Zimbabwe/Kenya. Those others weren't actually the host nation, they just happened to host a few games. See where I'm coming from? – PeeJay 20:30, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Rather than bite me on the Ukraine Special Forces talk page and assuming bad faith on my behalf, I think you misread my comment as patronage rather than that which it was intended to be: a helping hand being offered. Yes, it's a new article and is a huge mess of contradicting POV's, puffery, and suffers from the full spectrum of WP:WORDS problems. It's also not been treated as a coherent split from the Spetsnaz article. Enough of that for your talk page: I'll leave a more constructive response on the relevant talk page as soon as I get out from under about 100+ other problems with articles higher on my priority list at the moment.


 * I did leave a comment on the talk page, so it's a bit of a fib to say that no one responded on the talk page... In fact, I responded and explained why you shouldn't just tag an entire page leaving a comment by a once-only IP contributor who is treating the talk page as a forum simply agreeing that it's POV with absolutely no specifics.


 * Please remember that it isn't considered good protocol to complain about other editors (per WP:NPA) on any talk pages, including your own. Also, bear in mind that every editor is 'someone', not just a generic "someone", so being WP:CIVIL from the outset goes a long way. If you want to know something about me and my experience, take a look at my user page. You are still a novice, and the article you've become interested in falls under the hairy WP:ARBEE sanctions umbrella, so you need to know what you're doing if you have any intentions of working on it. Cheers for now! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:50, 16 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Just to be clear, when I tagged it as POV, it was because I'd read the section in question and agreed with it. There wasn't any evidence on the talkpage that people were intending to edit it, so my adding a POV tag, I was hoping to alert people to the issue. I'm sorry if this was the incorrect thing to do, I wasn't aware that other people knew of the problems, and I was genuinely trying to help. I don't just do what IPs say, I did look at it myself.
 * And yes, you did respond to me adding a POV tag, my complaint was that when I expanded on the POV issues, no-one replied to that comment. I've basically decided I'm fed up with the politics on some controversial pages, so I'm just going to stick to non-controversial, non-political pages when I return.
 * As for mentioning it on my talk page, I'm sorry that you feel it was Uncivil, but I was trying to vent frustration caused by a number of users. I feel I did misunderstand you, as I assumed your revert was based on "You're new, so you know nothing", which is a feeling I've been getting from quite a few pages. I wish you all the best. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:47, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Talkback
QED237&#160;(talk) 22:22, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Jayantilal Gada
You left a note over at talk page for Jayantilal Gada about two weeks ago, I spotted it doing a pass through my logs and deleted the talk page (its dependent on a deleted article, so I was following G8 protocol). I wanted to follow up though in case there was something I didn't know about the article just to make sure that I didn't inadvertently mess up some course of action you and/or Postcard Cathy were taking. TomStar81 (Talk) 12:21, 26 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't remember what I wrote on there, so I have no problems with it being deleted, especially if it was a G8. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:25, 26 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Just for the record, you wrote "I tried to move it back, but it seems not to have worked. The correct spelling Gada just redirects to the incorrect spelling page Gads." Not sure what it meant, but like I said I wanted to follow up just to be safe. TomStar81 (Talk) 13:05, 26 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Oh I remember now. Postcard Cathy accidentally moved the page, and I tried to move it back, but it wouldn't let me. I have no problems with deleting it. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:13, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Emily Kwok
Hello Joseph2302. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Emily Kwok, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: There is an obvious claim to importance there, although the subject might not meet WP:BIO in general. Thank you. § FreeRangeFrog croak 22:47, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * That's fine with me. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:50, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, this was intended for the original tagger but the script gets confused when another editor restores the speedy tag like you (appropriately) did. § FreeRangeFrog croak 23:12, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * No problem. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:15, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

2015 Cricket World Cup Scores in Group Games
Hi Joseph2302. Just wondering why you would remove all the top scores and most wickets from all group games at the World Cup. Some people spent a lot of time putting them on there but then you remove it all? Thank you. Could you please put it all back on for us. Shagadelicbasil23
 * There was a debate about it here ( Talk:2015 Cricket World Cup). It was agreed to move the top scorers and most wickets to these pages: 2015 Cricket World Cup Pool A and 2015 Cricket World Cup Pool B.

Nothing from the World Cup page was deleted, it was just moved, because people thought it was making the World Cup article too long. It's the same thing people did on 2011 Cricket World Cup. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:43, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that, I just thought it was all removed. Good to know it is on another page. Still think we should keep those details on the main page for the knockout stage? Thanks Shagadelicbasil23
 * I'm not sure, looking at 2011 Cricket World Cup, they had a separate article for the knockout stages. I'll open a debate at Talk:2015 Cricket World Cup to see what people want to do. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:59, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

User talk pages
Hi. I've declined your speedy at User talk:Buraas because we don't usually delete user talk pages. Especially when they have warnings on them... We do delete them if created by mistake and deletion is requested by the creator, or if the user is the only poster to the page, but those are rare (see the History to check). They can be deleted when the user is banned from Wikipedia (see User contributions to check the block log), but they are often replaced with a banning notice then. Talk pages starting User talk: can be deleted if they are not the talk page of a registered user - look at the left side of the page for 'User contributions'. If it's there, they are registered. If it's not, it's not a page that needs to be kept as it's a mistake, or an attempt by someone to change his/her username (which does happen sometimes). Peridon (talk) 16:58, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, that was a mistake by me, I thought it was a regular talk page when I marked it for deletion. Obviously user talkpages shouldn't be deleted, unless they're clearly malicious/advertising, which this one wasn't. Thank you for clearing up my mistake. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:02, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * No problems. BTW, wiggly writing like Arabic and others can often be identified by dropping them into Google Translate and selecting Detect language. There's two main ones that look like Arabic - Persian and Urdu - so if none of them come up, it'll be one of the others like Pashto, Luri or South Azeri, etc that Google can't translate. If this doesn't work, drop some of it into Google Search without quotes which gives you a chance to look at domain codes and Facebook etc codes too. (If the whole bit comes up, check for a copyright violation...) (South Azeri is the same as North Azeri - but North is written in their version of the Turkish alphabet with a characteristic upside down e (also used in the IPA to represent 'schwa' or 'uh' in American phonetics)). Pages for Translation can be a source of detective work if you enjoy that sort of thing. I do. Peridon (talk) 17:22, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yh, I usually check the language in Google Translate, but I forgot on one of them. Thanks for the advice though, I'm sure it'll be useful next time. Joseph2302 (talk)

Rewrites
Genesis20 78 (talk) 19:12, 13 February 2015 (UTC)There has been a consorted effort to correct erroneous information that has been slanderous and distorted. What is needed to take away the biased based and provide the corrected information?