Talk:Qoole

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because it simply does not promote the subject. The speedy deletion nomination is therefore invalid. --DanielPharos (talk) 18:50, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

DEPROD

I just deprodded the article. Since the prod, I've implemented massive improvements. I know notability is still somewhat of an issue (as it is with almost all articles of this category), but I feel that's for a proper AfD to decide. --DanielPharos (talk) 10:21, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Qoole. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120614142935/http://people.bath.ac.uk/pnr20/Publications/rich99a.pdf to http://people.bath.ac.uk/pnr20/Publications/rich99a.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:57, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Redirect to Quake mods

Me: dearth of substantial and in-depth, dedicated reliable sources (needs at least several)—R to parent topic with potential to expand

You: Contest deletion; let's talk on the talk-page, if needed

Hi @DanielPharos, not sure what there is to discuss. If you remove the patently unreliable sources, which I just did, we're left with next to no sourced information. We don't keep separate articles for topics about which we have (as I originally said and linked) a "dearth of substantial and in-depth, dedicated reliable sources". Personal websites don't pass muster but there are plenty of vetted video game-specific sites at WP:VG/RS. Also redirection is not deletion and Qoole is mentioned at the Quake mods page. Feel free to expand on the topic from reliable, secondary sources there. czar 15:30, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Firstly, I've restored some text that you accidentally deleted when removing those sources. Secondly, just nuking an article citing "bad sources" while it (at that point) had 10 sources of which the good-/badness hadn't been established is quite egregious. I have no idea if this article 'deserves' to be on Wikipedia, but at least now that a proper deletion nomination has been filed, we can find out. --DanielPharos (talk) 22:58, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

I removed that text on purpose. 3dgw.com is not a reliable source and we don't allow in-line external links, nevertheless to a primary source. We work, as a tertiary source, under the assumption that important points will be covered by secondary sources. Otherwise we'd be pulling all kinds of primary sources to make points and that becomes original research. As for the "nuke", I cited much more than "bad sources" and I suggest you re-read it rather than rolling with that mischaracterization. The procedure is to discuss on the talk page, not to jump to a deletion discussion. czar 23:38, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Let's focus on your second edit first. "rmv patently unreliable sources: use vetted vg sources" I do not see any mention of unsourced text being deleted from the article, only that sources are being deleted. I originally assumed your description was written as to describe your changes and thus came to the conclusion the deleting of text was an accident.

"dearth of substantial and in-depth, dedicated reliable sources (needs at least several)—R to parent topic with potential to expand" Out of the original 10 sources at least 3 were deemed proper by you (see your second edit), so I can safely assume you never meant to say that all 10 sources were bad. Since you never indicated which sources were bad, I was missing a vital step in your reasoning: namely, which sources you deemed bad. I figured not all of them would be, so I couldn't agree with your reasoning for redirecting the article.

"I cited much more than "bad sources" and I suggest you re-read it" Let me see. "dearth of substantial and in-depth, dedicated reliable sources (needs at least several)" is exclusively about sources, so that leaves "R to parent topic with potential to expand" which is the action you performed. So no, there's literally nothing more you cite than "bad sources", so I only had this so-called "mischaracterization" to go on.

Look, there's no sense in fighting over this. Your edit summaries gave me the idea that you were deleting articles left and right without consideration (note the looping re-directs for the MD2 and MD3 pages you created). This impression has obviously been wrong, and there's good and valid reasons for your actions. I just request that you maybe break down your "everything in one go" change into somewhat smaller bits (leaving perhaps a small amount of time between them, giving other the opportunity to fix-up an article), with proper edit summaries, so that other people (ie. me) can follow your reasoning. --DanielPharos (talk) 00:07, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

My first edit explains in complete depth everything that I did in the edit. It doesn't take much to see that the majority of the sources were either primary or unreliable, meaning not reliable or secondary... You could run them past WP:VG/RS but I don't even think it's necessary—remnants of an old WP. It's pretty clear that my second edit served to illustrate just what was not working about the sources, again linking the details to learn more about the action. If you misunderstood, it's usually good enough to just say so without spinning a yarn of blame, as edit summaries hardly get more specific than the ones I provided. To that point, my MD2 and MD3 redirects do not and never did loop, and if they did, it would be a typographical error. But I'm done with this discussion if you are finished making accusations. czar 01:00, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

The first part of your first edit summary claims bad sources without identifying them, and the second part only states what you did, not why. It's easy for someone that doesn't necessarily see things your way to not reach the same conclusions. "You could run them past WP:VG/RS but I don't even think it's necessary" wait, are you now claiming you don't even need to check sources if they're bad to treat them as bad? Can I apply the same logic to explain why I treated your edits as vandalism? — I can't, because it wouldn't be true, but do you see the problem with this kind of "I don't check with the rules" attitude?

"It's pretty clear that my second edit served to illustrate just what was not working about the sources, again linking the details to learn more about the action. If you misunderstood, it's usually good enough to just say so without spinning a yarn of blame, as edit summaries hardly get more specific than the ones I provided." Except for the part where you deleted text without explaining why, as I've already said.

"To that point, my MD2 and MD3 redirects do not and never did loop," Untrue. Go to the id Tech 3 article, and click its MD3 link. Where does it lead? This also happened for the MD2 link before it got reversed. "and if they did, it would be a typographical error." Incorrect. It's due to your careless way of redirecting articles without checking all the articles that lead to it.

"But I'm done with this discussion if you are finished making accusations." If I have accused you of anything, it's the careless way you go about redirecting articles. If I accused you of anything else, then I apologize for that, that was not my intention. Look, the outcome of your actions are probably the ones consensus would also reach if asked, but you decide to "jump to the end" immediately. And you are allowed to be WP:BOLD, so there's nothing wrong with that. However, if people can't follow or see your reasoning, they will revert your edit; see what just happened to the MD2 article. It's not the direction of your actions that's the rub, it's the speed with which you exercise them.

We're indeed done here, now that I've explained my motivations as to why I reverted your edit. I sincerely hope the insight it brings allows you to become a better editor. --DanielPharos (talk) 08:25, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

DP, before you accuse me of not knowing the rules, I suggest you look more into my background. On the other hand, you wanted more explanation on why patently unreliable sources were insufficient. MD3 links to id Tech 3—it's not my responsibility to undo MD3 links on that page, nor is any particular cleanup necessary when redirecting an article. (A loop is when two pages redirect to each other.) MD2 will end up the same way. I explained all of my actions and linked to further explanations for all of its major ideas. If you have specific questions, you're welcome to ask, but actions on WP are hardly more explained than the detailed edit summaries I left you. czar 18:59, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

"before you accuse me of not knowing the rules" Rest assured, I am not. "I suggest you look more into my background" Your actions should be able to stand on their own, which is how I am viewing them. "you wanted more explanation on why patently unreliable sources were insufficient" Not really, I wanted you to explain your actions, not the rules. I wanted to know WHY you performed your actions (the reasoning behind them), not the rule-compliancy of them. "it's not my responsibility to undo MD3 links on that page" Situation before you turned the article into a redirect: redirects were flowing properly. After your action: the id Tech 3 article links itself: broken. Conclusion: you broke it. You may or may feel it to be your responsibility, but it is at the very least your doing. "I explained all of my actions and linked to further explanations for all of its major ideas" You have, and I thank you for that. "actions on WP are hardly more explained than the detailed edit summaries I left you" It is your choice to perform edits in that way, and I respect that. Just as you have to respect my (hopefully now understandable) reaction to it. --DanielPharos (talk) 19:35, 11 December 2016 (UTC)