User talk:Kale Weathers/Archive 1

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome!  Will Beback   talk    18:35, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Edit summaries and tagging for speedy deletion
Hi there. I say you already got a welcome but let me welcome you as well. I have two things I wanted to point out to you:

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary.

and

Hi Kale Weathers. Thank you for your work on patrolling pages and tagging for speedy deletion. I just wanted to inform you that I declined to delete Nene Tamayo, a page that you tagged for speedy deletion under criterion A7 because of the following concern: Please note that A7 does only require any credible indication that the subject of the article might be significant or important, nothing more. A candidate on multiple installations of a TV show meets this requirement. You might want to read WP:10CSD and WP:A7M for more information. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion and especially what is considered Non-criteria. In future you should rather tag such pages for proposed deletion or start an appropriate deletion discussion. Regards  So Why  16:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

While I understand your points, agree with them even, I feel I must raise two particular points of my own. Oh, thank you for taking the time to write me about this matter. Anyways, the first issue I have is with the sheer volume of applicable templates one can use. Oftentimes they contain similar wording that causes me no end of irritation. I have caught several mistakes of my own in this regard. I will go back and revert some of the articles that fall under the point you raised.

The second issue, or point, as it is an opinion, is regarding the talk pages of articles. I have noticed that many of the articles I have encountered have no activity at all on their respective pages. This tells me that they are rarely visited. I could make a point for deletion or citation or what have you, but it could be weeks or even months before anyone stumbles across it. In reality, the way I see it, if I go around tagging articles, people can do as they please. I figure it's good enough just calling attention to them.

Again, that last is my opinion. Kale Weathers (talk) 16:37, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * There is no need to request deletion at talk pages. Deletion is handled either via speedy deletion or where this does not apply, articles for deletion (AFD) and proposed deletion (PROD). AFD is a system of centralized discussion that does not need any discussion on the talk page in question. PROD is a system similar to speedy-deletion for those deletions where there is unlikely to be any opposition at all. If you think someone might contest your reasoning, use AFD. Regards  So Why  16:56, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * PS: Also, if you think an article misses references, you can use refimprove or Unreferenced in the article itself to alert others about those problems. Template messages/Cleanup lists more of those templates. Regards  So Why  16:58, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, in any case, I suppose that about answers my question. I do, in fact, use the templates you suggested. Well, most of the time. I bid you good day. Kale Weathers (talk) 17:18, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Deletion
I would have done it in Twinkle for you, but you almost had it. You just needed to transclude the discussions onto the afd page like so:

I fixed it for you. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 18:32, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, you used prod. Prod and AFD are not the same. If you want to list it at AFD, you're supposed to use afd. Also fixed. I believe you also meant Dan Marsh (radio presenter) not Dan Marsh. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 18:35, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate the reply. Actually, the mixup came from a discussion with SoWhy regarding which was the better choice. I must have gotten turned around. For the record, when I used first went to add the two articles, I used the template you just showed me, however, it did not seem to be working correctly. Also, I did not see where I had erred when I looked at the entries that others had made. Perhaps I was in error, as you said. Regardless, thank you again for your assistance. Good day sir. Kale Weathers (talk) 18:52, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, there was still a problem with your two AfDs, which I think I have fixed - if you now get complaints that something is wrong with the format, you can blame me. What goes in the AfD page needs to be not just the title and the reason, but a template:
 * which expands to give a lot of red-tape material like the line with links to edit/talk/history etc, and the link back to the day's log. I find the easiest way to do an AfD is, after putting the template on the article, to click the link "preloaded debate" which appears in it; then you get talked through the remaining steps in a fairly easy-to-follow way (though I still heave a sigh of relief if it comes out right). The full details, and complications like how to bundle extra articles, are explained at WP:AfD. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 21:36, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * which expands to give a lot of red-tape material like the line with links to edit/talk/history etc, and the link back to the day's log. I find the easiest way to do an AfD is, after putting the template on the article, to click the link "preloaded debate" which appears in it; then you get talked through the remaining steps in a fairly easy-to-follow way (though I still heave a sigh of relief if it comes out right). The full details, and complications like how to bundle extra articles, are explained at WP:AfD. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 21:36, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Lavo Čermelj

 * Dear user who came out with the bright proposal of deleting the article on Lavo Čermelj: why not informing yourself on issues you are ignorant about before uttering opinions about them? If you dislike books, you can easily google it out. If you don't know about something, it doesn't mean it doesn't exist or it's not important. Best regards, Viator slovenicus (talk) 16:36, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, now I see you have something against Slovenia or Slovenians. Even if you didn't state it explicitly on your home page, it's pretty clear from your latest actions. I will take due action. Best regards, Viator slovenicus (talk) 16:43, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Good day to you sir. I have no issues with anyone or anyplace. What I did was hit Random Article, which I do all day. I came across this massive list of Slovenian....Psychologists, I think. All but three or so names were red linked. I reviewed the blue links and either tagged them if thought they were not notable, or edited them for content if I thought they were. Then, I moved to other lists and repeated my actions. Good day. Kale Weathers (talk) 18:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

After I was done, I got the amusing idea that someone was bound to make the assumption that I was some Slovenia-hating bastard and come after me. Guess what? I was right. Well, I say again, my friend, I have no hatred for anyone or anything. Well, I don't like spiders. As for my homepage, I was merely attempting humor. I thought, perhaps wrongly, that it would be worth some chuckles when the flood of people came to protest my ProD tags. Laugh or not, your choice. I did, however, make a disclaimer just to be safe, so I do thank you for bringing it up.

Now, on to your first issue; Don't assume that the burden of make an article notable lies with me. It lies, in my opinion, with the person who created the article. If you feel that there is more out there, then do it yourself. You know, as opposed to suggesting that my motives are to be questioned. Also, just because you are not happy with my choices, I would prefer not to receive a message full of subtle and not so sublte insults. Even if you think I deserve them. And with that, I have nothing more to say. Except that I wish you a good day. Kale Weathers (talk) 17:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The attempt of making humour was not particularly successful. If I were you, I would restrain from trying for a while. I completely agree with you when you write that the burden of pointing out the relevance of an article lies with the author. For two of the tagged articles, of which I’m the author, I’m safe to say that the relevance was quite well established. A stub article doesn’t equal irrelevance. As for the other articles, I’ve removed the tag in those, where the notability is blatant (more reference to these articles will be provided in the future, I hope). As for the others, I leave the burden of argumentation to their authors, or to somebody that knows something about the subject. Best regards, Viator slovenicus (talk) 18:01, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you were right. I suppose that sometimes difference in region might make humor difficult. I shall remove such things from my page.

However, I should take a minute to add something to my prior message. Many of the articles that I had tagged had already had prior tags for notability since 2008. This wasn't the truth for all the articles I tagged, but I took it as confirmation that there would be no issue.

And, since it seems we have reached an agreement of sorts, could I make a suggestion regarding your comment about improving articles that you started? It might be easier to write the article, find sources and then put it in wikipedia. Otherwise, the article sits there as a stub and attracts the attention of people like me.

Anyways, I am glad that we have reached a somewhat amicable conclusion to this discussion.


 * I'm glad we've sorted it out. Another thing: I was not notified that the articles I started were proposed for deletion, so I suspect that the authors of the other articles tagged in your today's campaign might also not have been notified, as it would be right procedure. In the case you haven't done so, I would ask you to notify the authors of the disputed articles about the deletion proposal. Best regards, Viator slovenicus (talk) 20:46, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Twinkle
If you are still having trouble with tags, you might consider using Twinkle It gives you an extra menubar that automates tagging, and is a great help in picking the right tags. It also automates the process of creating all the entries (including the entry on the original creator's page). As with all automated products, it does need some care, but it's vastly easier than trying to remember what tag goes where and how it gets filled in. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:25, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, I do use it actually. However, the computer at work, which I am on now, does not support it. IE only apparently. So, the majority of my work is simple patrolling for weasels and PoV. To be honest, I am probably not going to worry about tagging anymore. There is just too much hostility for my taste. And that's just the regional/national stuff. I thank you for the advice, however moot it turned out to be, and bid you an excellent day. Kale Weathers (talk) 16:38, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Notability
Hi! Regarding notability, you should perhaps be a bit more careful. I don't want to sound offensive, but some time ago, you nominated the article on Rabbi Meir Brandsdorfer for a speedy delete based on lack of notability. He recently died (last week), and you can see some pictures of his funeral procession here:. That should prove notability, right? Now, you should ask yourself, why did this happen? Why did you nominate an article on a very important person for deletion based on lack of notability? Being an experienced editor myself (several years experience), I suggest that you use the links in the article to check this person's position. In this example, had you checked, you could have found out that he was one of the six leading rabbis of Jerusalem's Edah HaChareidis rabbinical organization, which represents tens of thousands of strictly Orthodox anti-Zionist Jews in Jerusalem. Again, I don't want to sound offending; it's just something that perhaps, in the future, you could keep in mind when dealing with notability questions. The "Google check" also isn't always very reliable. Also, leaving a message on the article's talk page asking about how notable this person is, might be useful (other editors who have the article on their watchlist will respond). --Piz d&#39;Es-Cha (talk) 16:47, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * And a good day to you as well. Since you took the time to address your concerns, the least that I can do is respond to them. First, I think it should be stated right up front that I never use the "Google" method. Second, I have had nothing but frustration when it comes to placing tags. The one you are referring to was from some time back, and I have only been editing for a few months. Notability is not as easy a thing to determine as you might think. I think the Article for Deletion page is proof of that.


 * For the record, you didn't come off as offender per se, but I do take issue with the implication that I am ignorant, though you did not say such explicitly. I read the article and made what I thought was the right decision. If you take a quick look at my main page, I state quite clearly that I don't worry about what happens after I have edited a page. Again, I appreciate the time that you took in talking to me about your issues. While I doubt we see eye to eye, I think you should at least believe me when I say I have no malicious intent in my editing. I hope you have a wonderful day. Kale Weathers (talk) 17:02, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Indeed I saw that you are a relatively new editor: that's exactly why I thought I should mention this. It's just meant as advice, not as criticism. We can always improve ourselves even further; I'm a firm believer in life-long learning. That's what Wikipedia is for. In fact, I see Wikipedia as a combination of a history book and a learning book. Some articles are mainly of historical importance (for example, the article on Barack Hussein Obama) while others are of educative importance (such as Apoptosis, one of the things I'm learning right now). Welcome to Wikipedia and have fun here! After all, there is nothing wrong with enjoying yourself while writing history, and educating yourself and others. --Piz d&#39;Es-Cha (talk) 17:53, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Cujo
Hi. I'm going to reverse part of your recent edit on Cujo - the section where it mentions Stephen King's views on the book. I assume, given your edit, that you believe it's unreferenced (it certainly doesn't fall into "Weasel Words" territory). However, it's not unreferenced, there is a link directly within the section to "On Writing", the book in which Stephen King makes these comments. If you would prefer me to detail the page number within the book, let me know. David T Tokyo (talk) 16:12, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * And a good day to you, sir. It is refreshing to finally have someone not accuse me of being a depraved anti-(insert PoV) hatemonger, or ignorant fool.
 * Anyways, the rationale that I used was indeed what you assumed it to be. It might even be a good idea to place such citations at the very end of the statement. Otherwise, as in my case, someone might believe it to be an additional statement with no source.
 * Regardless, I appreciate the heads up, and thank you for being one of the more pleasent people I have had to deal with. I wish you well. Kale Weathers (talk) 16:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I'll make the necessary changes - and thanks for the kind words too. David T Tokyo (talk) 16:31, 20 May 2009 (UTC)