User talk:Faustus37/Archives2012/November

New COI draft

I've put up a new draft. I know your concerns were of a general nature and not over specific wording, but consider that the goal of this is to elevate the discussion on COI to more refined terminology. One goal of mine is to reduce the knee-jerk stigma of COI, and its hard association with "paid advocacy". Editors should realize that most everyone has a COI in some area or another, and refining our terms by getting rid of pejorative jargon like "COI editing" is a step toward that. I know this proposal doesn't outright do that, but by introducing better terminology based on relationships and obligations, I think it's a step in that direction. Gigs (talk) 13:55, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Joe Pulizzi page

Could you please offer advice on a rewrite for Joe Pulizzi? I mimicked two pages by similar authors in similar industries that HAD been accepted/kept, so I had a good guide on language and references. Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated. Thank you so much for your time! Cmcphillips (talk) 19:40, 1 November 2012 (UTC)cmcphillips

Prod's

When you remove a Prod, you are supposed to fix the reason for the Prod. Saying "take it to AfD" or "There are 3p sources out there" doesn't help. If there is an independent, reliable source, could you please add it. Bgwhite (talk) 05:31, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

No, I'm not. WP:DEPROD clearly says I'm "encouraged, but not required" to state a reason. "Take it to AfD" is a reason. I'm already giving you the benefit of the doubt. Faustus37 (talk) 08:16, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Um, yes I know it is encouraged and not required, but when you say sources are available or take it to Afd (when reason for prod is no sources) doesn't really help. In these cases you are supposed to list the actually sources in the articles... especially when the proder couldn't find any. How in the world does "Take it to AfD" giving me the benefit of the doubt? You are giving the article the benefit of the doubt without actually looking into the reason for the prod. Bgwhite (talk) 08:36, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

And giving the article the benefit of the doubt is why were here. See WP:NOTPAPER, WP:IGNORE, et al. It is much, much better to let a marginal article slide than to delete a good article. After all, Wikipedia is in no danger of crashing the Internet. ;-) Faustus37 (talk) 08:43, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Egads. We are not here to give an article the benefit of the doubt when no references are available. I see you have done 500 edits in ~4 years, so you are new. But, there are rules. There is a reason why we have Prods and AfD. Next time, list the references you found or don't delete the Prod. Don't go around deleting Prods for no reason. Bgwhite (talk) 09:09, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Your removal of Armin Hodžić is absolutely ridiculous. There is no sources. He doesn't pass WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL, but you want to "give it a chance". Just plain stop removing Prods. You don't know what you are doing. Bgwhite (talk) 09:12, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I will take your suggestions under advisement. However, I will NOT stand for you talking down to me and I will NOT under any circumstances stop removing PRODs I feel are unnecessary. I've read the rules. I'm well aware of what I'm doing. Now go bully someone else. Faustus37 (talk) 01:45, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Again, Per WP:GNG, you have to have independent, reliable references ABOUT a person. Showing photos does not cover this. When you keep proding articles that are taken and deleted at AfD means you do not understand or take time to follow rules. It makes more work for the rest of us. As you have said before, you are here to ignore all rules and I guess you will continue ignoring all rules. Bgwhite (talk) 06:19, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Yup. And WP:PROD clearly states anyone who objects to a PROD is "encouraged, but not required" to explain their reasons (emphasis mine). In other words, I'd be perfectly within my rights to object to PRODs for no reason at all. I will make an effort to present stronger rationales for PROD objections in the future, but I'm certainly not going to stop objecting to them because someone thinks I'm "ignoring the rules." Given that there's nothing inherently against "the rules" by objecting to PRODs in the first place, I fail to see how it's even possible to ignore "the rules." If that causes more work, so be it. Better to keep a bad article than delete a good one. Faustus37 (talk) 06:59, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

From the beginning, all I've asked is you be more careful with prods and when you give a reason, such as saying there are refs, to actually put in the refs. If you say there are refs, but the Proder couldn't find them, then it goes to AfD, where it takes up people's time. This is what I meant about taking up people's time. The article didn't need to go there if you actually put the refs in. I look at all the new biographies that come in every day, so I do alot of Prods. I never take it to AfD first because the creator may object and the reason stated makes sense or says something I hadn't thought of. So, by stating a reason, the article stays. My hope with a Prod is it is improved and sometimes it is improved, so the article stays. Most of the time the Prod is deleted without saying anything... then I take it to AfD. So if your goal is to have articles stay, saying why you removed the Prod accomplishes this goal. Removing the Prod and improving it again accomplishes the goal.

I think our goals are the same... keep an article on Wikipedia, improve articles and delete the one's that truely shouldn't stay. It's that your thinking is that you are on an island where your actions don't affect others. Yes, you don't have to give a reason why you removed the prod, but that is island thinking. Giving a reason why helps the person who placed the Prod to make then next call easier and not wasting other people's time. Bgwhite (talk) 07:35, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Telephone numbers in Azawad

The Prod stated that the article should be deleted because "It uses the system and code of Mali, because it is part of Mali.". You removed the prod stating "PROD object. Azawad is part of Mali for the time being." Um, so you agreed with the Prod, but removed the prod anyway for what? Bgwhite (talk) 06:43, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

It appears to me to be a better candidate for a merge, since it appears there's no significant difference between calling Azawad or Mali at this time. That said, we do have several similar articles regarding largely non-recognized states (Telephone numbers in Abkhazia, as an example). I suppose a case could be made (albeit a weak one) for WP:LISTPURP. In any event, I'm not so much for keeping the article as much as I think it should be hashed out in AfD. Next time something like this comes up I'll make sure to be clearer about my intentions. Faustus37 (talk) 06:59, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Ah, a redirect. That works too. Faustus37 (talk) 07:19, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

For next time, you can do a merge or redirect on your own. So instead of objecting to the Prod, just merge/redirect.

I don't like doing a redirect on my own because that essentially deletes an article. I think in this case it is a clear cut and it doesn't delete any info. If it is iffy, I'll take it to AfD and say a redirect/merge could be an option. Recently I had an article about a military person. My feeling is it was a redirect per the rules, but there was info in there that wasn't in the main article, so I did an AfD. It did end up being a redirect.

Merges are a grey area. If you place a merge tag on the article, it can go years without actually being merged. If you feel it is an iffy merge, place the merge tag and leave a note on the talk page. If nothing is said after a week or so, then do the merge yourself. If you feel it is a straight up merge, then merge it yourself.

There is one place where a merge/redirect is easy and that is on musicians. Rules state if a musician is not notable outside the band, then merge and redirect. So if it is a clear cut case, I'll merge/redirect musicians. Bgwhite (talk) 07:47, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

SCHMIDT

I see you added a link that appears to show that the single "charted", however the site monitors iTunes downloads, which AFAIK does not qualify under WP:NSONG. I could find no information about any of her work actually charting. And the few third-party references I found were not WP:RS or even said they took the text from her Facebook profile. Do you have a reliable source as to her charting performance? §FreeRangeFrog 18:50, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

The only charting I could find was the German ITunes chart previously mentioned. However, I do believe she passes WP:MUSBIO#5 based on her two major-label releases (albeit one an EP, granted). However, given that, and the fact she's touring internationally, and the fact she's opening for some pretty big names, and the fact she's she's had significant coverage in both the Daily Mail and The Sydney Morning Herald, I think we have a strong case for notability here. Faustus37 (talk) 20:20, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Hmm. Well, I'm not going to AfD it, but I don't think the case for notability is particularly strong. Cheers. §FreeRangeFrog 20:23, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Glad to see you back

I thought I might have made you so mad as not to edit. I'm glad to see you back. Bgwhite (talk) 06:45, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

You don't get rid of me that easily. ;-) Faustus37 (talk) 07:26, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Ah crap, you are just like my wife... I won't be able to get rid of either of you :) Bgwhite (talk) 07:44, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I suppose I'm divorced for a reason ... Faustus37 (talk) 08:48, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm remarried. I was stupid enough to do it again. You too can be dumb, stupid and idiotic and get married again. Bgwhite (talk) 08:52, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

No arguments here. Faustus37 (talk) 08:54, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the barnstar. I really do appreciate that. I'm even happier that you are still editing around here. I saw you are appealing Jana Cruder's deletion... I have Mbisanz's talk page on my watchlist. I thought about sending my blind, hairless, toothless poodle after you, but instead, expect a visit from the most evil, vile SOB ever... my mother-in-law. She eats baby puppies for fun. I think you will end up sending it to deletion review. The deletion review people are a little more sympathetic that the AfD people, so it stands a good chance of having the AfD overturned. Bgwhite (talk) 21:57, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

GAN nominations

Hi Faustus - I see that you have nominated quite a few articles at WP:GAN. I have left comments at Talk:Idaho/GA1, but ultimately failed the article because it is quite far from GA status. The last paragraph of my comments there deals more generally with your nominations, so I am going to replicate them here:

While I appreciate your enthusiasm, it does not appear that you edited the articles, or at least the ones that I checked. It is generally better for editors who have worked on a particular article to be the ones to nominate it, and it also often works best for new GA nominators to nominate one article at a time, so that they can see how the process works, get tips, and then apply their new knowledge to their other articles. The other articles that you nominated that I looked at have many of the same problems with a lack of referencing and poor layout and formatting. I would suggest withdrawing them (or all but one that you are really interested in working on), and perhaps work with another experienced editor, or at a process such as WP:Peer review, until you really understand the GA criteria. Please let me know if you have any questions, Dana boomer (talk) 15:42, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

With respect to the Idaho article, your comments regarding the GAN itself are well-received. However, I have done quite a bit of editing on the Idaho article (68 edits, to be precise). While it's true I haven't worked on it recently, indeed somewhat less recently than I thought, the article nevertheless has quite a bit of my work in it. The same holds true for the others I nominated. If they don't pass, they don't pass. Life goes on. Even so, why would I nominate articles I haven't put work into? I'm not exactly new around here, and I frankly resent the implication that I would. Faustus37 (talk) 17:13, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

FYI

I've removed a number of non-free images from your newly-created userboxes, since the use of such images anywhere except for in appropriate articles is a violation of the non-free content policy and guideline. Please let me know if you have any questions. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:46, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Very well. I've corrected the boxes accordingly. Thanks. Faustus37 (talk) 17:13, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Continuing the conversation with Bgwhite

Bring it on. It can't possibly stand up to the illogic of my (thankfully) ex-mother-in-law. Faustus37 (talk) 06:58, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

RE: National Association for Gun Rights

Hi. Are you sure about the closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National Association for Gun Rights as keep? Your RfA in April 2012 raised concerns about your stated inclusionist perspective. My {{Db-g11}} tag (prompted by an admin and supported by the nominator) was present for barely 20 minutes. It would be appreciated if you could please elaborate further on your weighing up of the arguments in order to determine rough consensus. Thanks very much. -- Trevj (talk) 13:37, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I am concerned about the closure. "Cited in adequate third-party sources" does not establish notability; significant coverage is required. As I noted in the discussion, there's no significant coverage of National Association for Gun Rights (NAGR) in the cited sources. Coverage was mostly incidental; a couple of sources didn't even mention NAGR. I found no significant coverage in my own search. What I did find was disturbing: Multiple accusations in gun rights forums that NAGR is a "scam" and Dudley Brown, the organization's Executive Vice President, using his article in Wikipedia as evidence the organization isn't a scam. Links were included in the discussion. I, too, would like to know how you determined that the consensus was to keep the article. I'll watch for a reply here. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·cont) Join WER 22:34, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• Not to pile on, but I too have questions about the removal of the speedy and NAC. I noticed the Afd when I was doing some gnoming, and planned to close it when I had time to read it. Please do respond when you have a moment. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 14:31, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

• I stand by my comments that there is adequate third-party citation in the article. However, given there's obviously a lack of consensus, I relisted the AfD. Faustus37 (talk) 22:42, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks - at least that will save the need for a long drawn-out discussion elsewhere. Apologies if the eventual outcome of the AfD is the same as your close. Cheers. -- Trevj (talk) 23:08, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks - I appreciate your attentiveness to this article and the opportunity to clarify some of the accusations being made that continue to be made on this. As a supporter of the article, I too wanted to call attention to the opponents using unreferenced hearsay in web forums as evidence, while ignoring other references. I think you made the correct initial call, but this should help clarify it. Rf68705 (talk) 05:09, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Howard Dean

Hi Faustus. I am sorry but I failed the Howard Dean Good article nomination. It had multiple outstanding cleanup tags on it, many of which were still relevant. AIRcorn (talk) 03:58, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh well, such is life. Thanks for checking it out. Faustus37 (talk) 04:07, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Just came across Bill Richardson. It has a large banner at the top that has been there since July. These really need to be sorted out before nomination as Good articles cannot have those banners. See WP:GACR#Quickfail number 3. Sorry failed that one too. AIRcorn (talk) 04:20, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Huh. Don't remember seeing that ... Faustus37 (talk) 04:21, 30 November 2012 (UTC)