User talk:Charlesdrakew/Archives/2011/October

More bus routes at AfD

I have just submitted a bunch of Hampshire bus routes for deletion - take a look at my contribs or today's AfD log and feel free to comment. Rather than submit every bus route article in the UK for AfD, which I think should be done, do you know if there is there a more effective way to do it? --Simple Bob ^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 14:22, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Good luck with that. These AfD debates are not supposed to be a ballot. Closing amins should give due weight to the strength of the various arguments put forward and discount "me too" meatpuppets but in practise they tend to sit on the fence and call no consensus. It would certainly be easier to have some kind of category deletion but I do not know how that would be done.--Charles (talk) 20:52, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Reasonable request at User Talk:Adam mugliston

Hi Charles. I've noticed your recent dealings with Adam mugliston and have been watching his talk page. This morning, he made a very reasonable request [1] that you do not post on his talk page, except for notifications. He has identified that discussions between you on user talk pages are generally destructive rather than constructive and as I happen to agree I recommend that you comply with that request. Worm^TT · (talk) 08:00, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Worm. I would be happy not to have to go to Adam's talkpage as his large loud sickly green signature all over the place is rather puke making. If he made any reasonable attempt to abide by the normal editing guidelines I would not need to go there. There are many problems that you as his mentor should be addressing as shown by his recent post at [2]. Here he uses the spurious "other stuff exists" arguments to justify adding more non-notable material. He then admits that it is original research and that it is intended to be a source of detailed information i.e. a directory. In spite of good advice from yourself and many other experienced editors there has been no progress towards writing properly sourced encyclopedic prose, only more listcruft. He is clearly not stupid which makes it likely that rather than failing to understand these issues he is deliberately ignoring them. To come back to your original request I will continue to edit where I see fit.--Charles (talk) 08:45, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestions, I'll have a good look at the AfD and discuss Adam's conduct there with him. I'm fairly certain that he can improve the arguments he makes at AfD to be more persuasive and I'm sure I can help him out with that. However, I should point out that "Other Stuff Exists" is a valid argument, it's just that we have come to avoid that argument on Wikipedia because it is inherently weak due to the nature of the encyclopedia.

Similarly, your opinion that he's adding listcruft - cruft is a subjective term and the work needs to be reviewed, discussed and consensus formed. I understand your point of view and you'll note I haven't given mine, but I will say that I think both yours and Adam's are valid. I should also point out that Featured Lists have been elevated to the main page, meaning that lists have the ability to be of high encyclopedic value. I ask that you consider the possibility that he is trying to improve the encyclopedia.

Returning to my original recommendation, be careful about editing "where you see fit", Wikipedia has a policy on harassment - "Harassment, threats, intimidation, repeated annoying and unwanted contact or attention, and repeated personal attacks may reduce an editor's enjoyment of Wikipedia and thus cause disruption to the project." (bolding added). Adam has made a reasonable request for you to stop posting on his talk page, nipping a possible larger future problem in the bud. Keep that in mind if you see fit to edit on his talk page. Worm^TT · (talk) 09:07, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Featured lists that achieve featured list status are lists of notable things and they tend to have quite a lot of prose in them. They are nothing like the original research databases that Adam and a few others have been compiling. I am not harrassing anyone but I will continue to point out breaches of WP's basic policies when necessary. If you choose to interpret that as harrassment that is your problem.--Charles (talk) 13:13, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Objections to evolution

I just would like to ask you about the rationale for your removal of list of countries after India, South Korea, Brazil and Israel have been added as ones with widespread creationism as opposition to evolutionary views, do you have anything personal against these countries or why you've been tolerating the list for so long until these have been added? Pls., clarify. Thanx in advance.--Stephfo (talk) 09:12, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

If I may butt in -- the longer, and thus more prominent, a list becomes, the more scrutiny it will be under, and the more important becomes the question of "does this really belong here?" A few words, connected (albeit loosely and without substantiation) to the topic is likely to be overlooked. A far longer, and less connected, list is not. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:26, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

But then why you removed the list from section "Degree of acceptance", it does not make sense to speak about degree of acceptance if you are not mentioning by whom, and here is the place where countries such as Korea or Brazil fit well in the picture, all article is full of controversy in US, but this is not the whole world, a fortiori because Korea is held to be "creatoinist capital in the world in density" and in Brazil they teach creationism along evolutionary theory, thus it is absolutely awkward to elaborate on this topic w/o mentioning countries highly involved in stating their objections to evolution. Without that the article becomes a propaganda of proponents of evolutionary view w/o giving any room to countries famous for opposing that view by majority of their poppulation.--213.52.31.122 (talk) 10:02, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, because it was not articulating either an "Objection to evolution", or a rebuttal of such an objection. The purpose of that section is not any and all information related to "degree of acceptance", but rather degree of acceptance as it relates to an objection to evolution. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 11:22, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

This sounds as though it belongs at the creationism article if anywhere. Wikipedia articles are intended to give a broad overview of a subject without going into every detail and where to stop is a matter for editorial consensus.--Charles (talk) 17:43, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Heads Up

I see you reverted User:Dannymex, for info all of his contributions so far are copyvios from other websites. Thanks for reverting, good catch. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:41, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes it looked like a copypaste straight away.--Charles (talk) 21:51, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Bus routes in Eastleigh AFD

AFD voted for a merge. I have merged and redirected. This was an out of date AFD with a clear consensus and I do not need to be an admin because it wasn't delete. Rcsprinter (talk) 15:51, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

An AfD is not a vote. An uninvolved admin should base his decision on the strength of arguments put forward, not just numbers for and against. Closing an AfD is not for you to do, especially as you are involved in the debate and so have a conflict of interest.--Charles (talk) 16:06, 6 September 2011 (UTC)