User talk:Mabuska/Archive 42011/May

Why the stubs?
Just going by the quality scale here: Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Assessment, I'd say that most of those articles you marked as stubs fit in the "C" or higher class. A sub is "Provides very little meaningful content; may be little more than a dictionary definition", while a "C" is "Considerable editing is needed to close gaps in content and address cleanup issues." Mathewignash (talk) 22:00, 18 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Please don't really suggest that those articles would fit into the "C" or higher class. Whilst Boss and Artemis i would say still meet the description of a stub - it should be stated as a start class article if its not a stub. They are hardly C quality. A couple i marked as starts however i will upgrade to a C as i was being quite harsh in an attempt to maintain integrity in the grading. Mabuska (talk) 22:41, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I can agree with "start" then. Thanks for looking into it. Mathewignash (talk) 22:47, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I only rated 20-30 so far, and almost all were graded as starts, though some i'm upgrading to C class. Just wanted to get the ball rolling and lower the number of unassessed articles. As long as we aren't over-rating them, a lower rating can always be improved once we look at the articles in greater detail to see any ways we can copy-edit them and improve them. Mabuska (talk) 22:52, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I was worried about some editors targeting stubs for deletion. I figure if an article has lots of text, it can't really be a stub. Even if that info is badly organized, it's there. Thanks! Mathewignash (talk) 22:57, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Stub doesn't automatically mean it'll be a target for deletion proposers. Though Artemis really does look like a stub, and i've seen longer stubs than that article. Even graded as a start, i doubt it would survive a deletion proposal as it doesn't look very notable and could easily be covered in a related parent article. Boss i've proposed for merging with Turbomasters, as once you copy-edit that article, there will be little left that would merit Boss having its own article either, and as some of the info is already covered at Turbomasters, a merger of the rest of the remaining information can be easily accomodated.
 * By tackling the issue of article notability etc. and removing/merging those that don't meet the criteria before they are proposed for deletion by those who are intent on proposing TF articles for deletion, will work good in our and the projects favour. Mabuska (talk) 23:03, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Raintheone
I appreciate your comments on Requests for comment/Raintheone‎. In regards to your question on Mathewignash's talk page, this all started because admin BOZ posted on Jake's talk page, that he should take any problems with Raintheone to dispute resolution.

You can see here where he suggested that Cerebellum, Mathewignash and I be included, since we were all involved in the discussions with Raintheone. I was not canvasing for support, only trying to notify everyone involved, so that they could give their opinions on the matter one way or the other. Fortdj33 (talk) 12:48, 21 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Was Nikkimaria also sent a notice? I see that they were involved in the GA discussion/arguement, so it would be good to notify them if they haven't been already. I also notice that JHenderson wasn't mentioned in BOZ's message to Jake, so it would be paramount to notify anyone who had been involved minor or not just to get a broader view. Mabuska (talk) 22:04, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Nikkimaria must be aware of the RfC/U, because it appears that Raintheone contacted her about it directly. BOZ has already been there to endorse your comments, along with those by Seth Kellerman. And the only reason I sent a message to JHenderson, is because I remembered offhand that he was involved in the discussions for the AfD on Zartan, and the GAR on the Marvel Comics article. There are probably others, and I was not trying to leave anyone out, so if you think anyone was missed, please feel free to invite comments from them as well. Fortdj33 (talk) 02:31, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't see a notice on their talk page, so unless they have emailed them about it, which depends solely upon them disclosing that information, we shouldn't assume. Just making sure that you have all bases covered. Mabuska (talk) 10:40, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Sock puppet attacks
Just ignore them and report them. He's been marauding the Transformers wikiproject for months. He just exists to get a laugh from inciting people. Don't bother responding. Mathewignash (talk) 13:20, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Lords and Ladies of Ireland
Because of the edit conflict, the end of that discussion has become one big misunderstanding. If you are agreeable, I will revert this edit and remove my rather hasty response and your rejoinders. And I'll explain my "joke" here on your talk page. Scolaire (talk) 10:30, 24 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Please revert. When i altered my comment, i didn't know that you had commented, and was hoping to change it before it was commented upon. Mabuska (talk) 10:33, 24 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Done. Now, to explain my little joke. When I said, "are you saying that some of the English/British kings or queens had Irish consorts that wouldn't be in the lists of English or British consorts? If that was so it would be amusing and well worth having a list!", I meant it would be funny if some English monarchs had married bigamously in Ireland, so that they had "Irish consorts" that weren't recognised in England.
 * Anyway, I think we can close the discussion on WT:IE. I am putting forward my views on the relevant talk pages. I am not going to nominate them for deletion at this time, though I may do further down the line. Scolaire (talk) 10:46, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I see the joke now, i thought it was sarcasm originally. Mabuska (talk) 10:50, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

GOCE drive newsletter
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 07:47, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Ireland placebox - what to do next
As the deletion proposal has passd, I think we should decide what to do next, so I'v startd a discussion here. ~Asarlaí 17:39, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Unicron
I brought up a new argument. -- FaithLehaneThe  Vampire  Slayer  11:32, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Flags
Hi, amongst other names the user Sarah777 has referred to the union flag as an "excrescence". I think she is misusing the word, probably thinking it has something to do with excrement. Anyhow, where is the best place to report this behaviour? I looked at notice boards and there's an etiqutte one - is that correct or would the NPOV one be better? WizOfOz (talk) 21:39, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * See Excrescence for a simple description of it, so it would appear its use is possibly derogatory. If you want to report Sarah777's behaviour then go to Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents. They are not a stranger to that place or being reported for this and that. Mabuska (talk) 22:01, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You might also want to raise the bullying threat they made against you on your talk page. Mabuska (talk) 22:17, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Ireland
Howdy Mabuska. I wonder if anyone has ever considered dividing that WikiProject into Wikipedia: WikiProject Ireland and Wikipedia: WikiProject Ireland (island). The former being concerned with only the republic. GoodDay (talk) 01:47, 9 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually as we have the Ireland Collaboration WikiProject, it should be defined as for the island, with the WikiProject Ireland specifically catering for the Republic of Ireland alone. In effects this would mean removing the statements that the NI WikiProject is a child of the Ireland WikiProject and make it a child of the Collaboration one. Mabuska (talk) 10:20, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

GOCE drive update
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 06:56, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Uncivil comment, please amend
With regard to your comment here, please don't speak on my behalf. It's incivil at the very least and counter productive. Regardless of our differences in opinion, we can work as colleagues and with respect.

Comments such as that are not helpful and do not assume good faith. Could you please remove it or amend it to something else? --RA (talk) 11:20, 18 May 2011 (UTC)


 * No i shall not. You jump at whatever chance you can get to push your opinion on Northern Ireland not being a country. You even said to me once how it riles it up so i am not lying in regards to that statement. Anytime someone brings it up (like i did once) when your active your there like a shot pushing and pushing your case regardless of any prior agreements or consensus on the matter.


 * Also check your own comments before calling others uncivil. Couldn't "or the usual stonewalling ("This has been discussed before."/"It's consensus.")." also be interpreted as uncivil commenting on other editors?


 * Mabuska (talk) 22:51, 18 May 2011 (UTC)


 * That's your choice (removing or amending the comment). And the stonewalling comment from me was worded hardly.
 * Please appreciate that I am not interested in pushing my opinion (and please don't throw pervious comments back in my face as "evidience" that I am acting with an agenda). I genuinely believe the current wording lacks neutrality with respect to the balance of sources and that we can do better. I am also very frustrated (as others are) with the approach to the issue shown on the talk page by some participants.
 * I posted here re: civility because I respect you as a colleague on this project. Your comment was hardly the worst thing that is being heaped upon me in that discussion but it's hurtful to be abused when I am acting in good faith.
 * --RA (talk) 10:54, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If you were acting in good faith then i apologise for it. Respect on this project is mutual. My personal choice has always been "province" however i backed the "country" use due to the amount of sources that use it. Mabuska (talk) 12:45, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks.
 * For me, the "number of references" argument is one of the most troubling aspects of how sources are treated in that discussion. There are forests of paper on both the UK and Northern Ireland. Any of these words can be supported by a vast numbers of references of the kind that are cited. The number doesn't really prove anything. The number collected for each term is determined more by the tenacity of the searcher than use of a term. I doubt a scientific approach was taken - and even if one was, until published, it's OR. It's certainly no way to balance what sources say.
 * (Off-topic, but I would usually use "province" too. I look at it from the perspective expressed by Michael McGimpsey in one of the refs: it's a term than can be imagined to look both east and south at the same time.) --RA (talk) 13:48, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Irish nationalists as far as i'm aware don't like the term province in regards to Northern Ireland as to them it implies that the province of Ulster is British, however the province of Ulster and the province of Northern Ireland are not in anyway connected other than the fact they both share some of the same land. On the sources - many (not all) of those that state country are good sources, whilst some of those that say its not should be treated with a degree of suspicion for editorial bias. The whole issue will never be ended perfectly. Mabuska (talk) 13:51, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

United Kingdom
Howdy Mabuska. Had everyone adopted either of my 2 proposals 'months ago', there'd be no footnote to fight over. GoodDay (talk) 23:48, 19 May 2011 (UTC)