User talk:LibStar/Archive 7

This is an archive of past discussions about User:LibStar. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Scholar hypocrisy

I am very well aware of the citation policy. Actually, I even feel much more so, than many people who make a habit of littering articles with pointless^{[citation needed]s}, as I feel was the case with most of your edits to the article. The very WP:BURDEN states that:

All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation.

I place the weight on the words any material challenged or likely to be challenged. I don't know how well you are familiar with the scope of this article you are editing, but statemants like

As elsewhere, technological advancements such as railroads and industrialization were key factors behind the city's growth.

are indeed so general, so self-evident, and so obvious that they are very unlikely to be specially stated in any scholar publication, and if true, finding the publication might be a waste of time, as anyone familiar with the history of 18th, 19th, or 20th century Europe – even only to the level that is taught at public schools – should be very well-aware that railroads and espcially industrialization indeed were generally key factors behind any city's growth during this period. So I would indeed be thrilled to hear what do you exactly find "challengeable" in this particular statement? --hydrox (talk) 07:13, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, exactly, and I totally agree with you about the statistics part; and espcially any material (statements, "facts") that are likely to be challanged, just as the policy states, do need a source/citation. Also, if you happen to have a source at hand, it's not a bad idea to mark it down. However, I don't see the point of adding these ^{[citation needed]s} everywhere, especially if the fact is obvious or very easily verified. Sometimes, I feel, it is enough that the sentence appears in a very popular Wikipedia article – like the article on a capital of a well-known soverign state with 75 watchers – to prove that this trivial sentence might be correct; otherwise it would have been long since challenged and/or removed. Remember that Wikipedia didn't orignally enforce such strident citation policy. It was changed only after some idiots made bad-faith defamatory articles about living persons, which naturally lead to a very powerful outcry in the traditional media (with which Wikipedia competes), and eventually lead to a change of the de facto Wikipedia policy. I do support very strict material guidelines to BLP articles for the above reasons, but feel this ^{[citation needed]} thing has gone way over the top very long since for even the most obvious of facts in the most non-controversial of articles.

Remember that we rely on good faith, which means that we try to assume that our editors thrive to write articles from a neutral point of view, and should have no motivations to mislead the readers. This must be the rule for the project to work, but there are of course a few well-publicized exceptions (of organized adding of misleading/incorrect/biased information to Wikipedia) indeed. However I'd call it paranoia if we require a citation for every single sentence in every single article – assume good faith, for me at least, is still the most important of the Wikipedia's guidelines.

Bottomline: I have been in Wikipedia for almost 6 years and seen lots of good, but also a transformation from a fast-growing project to somewhat boring, self-cencoring, nerve-wrecking place where people add too many redundant ^{[citation needed]s} to the most obvious of facts, and forget to just be bold and edit – the very guideline that probably got almost all of the editors started in the first place! --hydrox (talk) 10:04, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Is not sufficient for Wikipedia? Excuse me, but by my rough estimate about 95% of the actual content in Wikipedia are from the top of someone's head. If that is not sufficent for Wikipedia, then 95% of the material in Wikipedia should be deleted. This would hardly make for the online encyclopedia that people know it as today. Good faith is not only about assuming that the citations people give connect to the matter, but believing that they have no need to lie to you in the first place. I hope you realize that holding such suspicious views is not only damaging to the project, but also hostile to a large number of the editors, who assume their contributions are approved of. I am sure people like you would feel more at home at citizendium.org, or some other strictly peer-reviewed encyclopedia. They currently have only 121 approved articles (as contrasted to the 11,593 featured/good articles in Wikipedia), so I am sure help would be much appreciated!

p.s. And yes I do think you should be welcome to write basic information about your home town from the top of your head, if such is not already in the wiki. --hydrox (talk) 13:36, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello. I have reviewed these comments I left on your talkpage. Now on the second thought, and after good night's sleep, they seem pretty harsh for adding a few {{fact}}s to an article, but there is some other background too (specifically, the Helsinki slang deletion debate, which I without a hint of doubt find absolutely outrageous and unaccetable behaviour on your part). I apologize if this seems like a personal attack, as I did not intend to be rude. Specifically, I would like to correct the above notion that questioning the factuality of contributions would be about not approving of them, as this is clearly a senseless idea. However, I'd love to see you pay more attention to which facts are actually verifiable in the first place as you mark them up for verification, and which we more or less have to accept as is (I have an urge to link to this article – from a non-trivial set of axioms it is always possible to construct unproveable statements; a fact we humans are more than used to living with). I really hope we both agree we don't need every single statement in Wikipedia to be verified; as some are just too trivial. And, more so, I would like to see people only request citations to articles that they have at least some knowledge about, so we can avoid situations where someone totally ignorant to the field request a citation for a statement that is obvious to anyone with basic understanding of the subject matter. As we saw in our small yesterday edit war, removing a citation request is much harder than adding one; even if the fact seems obvious.

If you know about patents, I think there's a great guideline. Only inventions, that are non-obvious can be patented. Similarly, only Wikipedia facts that are non-obvious should be marked up for verification, save for BLPs maybe. Otherwise we would burn out all the editors, as they are forced to look up citations for even the most obvious of facts, or face the bottomless criticism of deltionists.

(tl;dr): There also lies burden on the shoulders of those who add citation requests. At least I hope so, as merciless hypocrisy does not serve the interest of anyone. --hydrox (talk) 15:01, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

It appears that already in 2007 somebody wrote an article about what I am trying to say above. Please read that carefully, and while you are at it, why not read this as well. And secondly, I don't want to and do not claim ownership on any articles, and have no idea why do you think so. I know Wikipedia is an open-edit encyclopedia and that's why I like it, but it's also a community where we must listen to each other for it to work at all, and I strongly disagree with some of your views on citations, as I find them rather irresponsible and unconstructive. The above essays should further clarify my specific points of view and why I disagree with many of your actions. --hydrox (talk) 21:10, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I am not trying to discourage you from editing anything. Please do not veer the discussion off track. You got me wrong if you really think so. I am trying to discuss policy, and when and for what reasons do we require a citation. I welcome you to edit artciles as long as the material you are contributing is constructive and serves the project as a whole. Please read those two essays – this one is shorter and more concisely expresses exactly what I want to say. There should be certain guidelines for when we should require a citation, and after reviewing your edit history and seeing several of your edits I think your standards for citation requests are not similiar as mine, and as such a discussion is in place. You edit similiar articles as me (I do not know if you are Finnish – judging by the comments you left to the Helsinki slang debate you are either not Finnish or a very anti-Helsinkian Finn; I am Finnish) so edit-conflicts are unavoidable. Simply put I am trying to persuade you to lower your standards for marking facts up for citations, and would like to hear your specific viewpoint on when should a Wikipedia article exactly present a citation for a stated fact. --hydrox (talk) 02:01, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Music of Finland

Hello, you did it again. This time you marked Music of Finland as containing original research without any explanation as to why. Please explain the exact reasons why you believe this article contains original research on the talk page, or I will have to remove the banner. Also, claiming an article contains original research is hardly a minor modifcation. Thanks, hydrox (talk) 19:20, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. The minor/major thing was pretty much just a sidenote, I honestly don't mind. But you didn't answer my basic question, which was whether you will publicly & openly explain the reasons you believe this article contains original research on its talk page. Grazie, --hydrox (talk) 02:04, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Really nice to hear that we can find a positive tone to this dialogue! Yes, indeed this article requires some work – it seems to be one of those articles with no one really caring for the grand layout ("the picture as a whole"); more like it seems to consist of variously sized additions that people made over the years.

The way Wikipedia is, it is not so uncommon for people to drop a few sentences or a new section to an artcile without ever reading the whole article with thought. People generally add to WP as they read it, and if they spot missing information they have a high initiative to update the content. Anyway, since day-0 I have seen sentences that are out of place and serious lack of article-as-a-whole editing, but this is generally fixable with pure authoring work as the time passes, and eventually someone maybe has the time to do the "dirty work" (the event "someone has the time to do it" could happen at any point of time from "right now" to "in eternity" – if the point of Wikipedia was to produce the mankind's ultimate encyclopedia of everything, finalizing the layout would be the last stage; right now we would be somewhere around collecting the base data and the articles starting to take their eventual form).

Dirty layout & careless sectioning does not necessarily mean bad content. I personaly remember only one time reading some straight-out incorrect material in Wikipedia: this was when I discovered that the article on a certain famous Finnish musican stated that he was of Romani ancestry. I happened to know from memory that he is born in Lapland, and promptly edited the correct information there. It turned out the original misinformation was sourced to the iMDB, that indeed said so about his ancestry – so I can not really blame even this one on the WP editor. I have no idea how this information got to the iMDB as it is not an open project in the same sense as WP is. However, I do not care about this subject more than just to add the few sentences to correct these ancestry facts and send a correction to the iMDB. I tried expanding the article a few times, but I just didn't find it interesting. But, years later some obviously eager dudes came around and expanded the article massively with exactly that kind of information (his actual musical history in contrast to personal biography) that I was unsure about adding, which of course greatly relieved me. This, of course, is a golden example of the Wiki process.

However, you should not use the Unref/OR template to mark the article up if it looks dirty (there's {{cleanup}} for that). As we are an open-participation encyclopedia that anyone can edit, we are very unlikely to have misinformation, and if we do, that should be edited out quite fast, as people also (mostly?) read articles on the subjects that they already have great, good or average knowledge on, and wish to learn more. Sometimes they even can have scholarly recognized knowledge (maybe one in thousand) – for example I could claim to have some scholar knowledge on CS, but I do not really read it so much in Wikipedia, as with academic experience you start to more and more realize that WP is alwyas second hand information and the real source lies in dedicated publications.

The thing is, however, that even the best contributors can be recognized scholar masters in up-to four–five fields. Most ever achieve recognition only in maximum one field, and are happy so. So, obviously most of the material in Wikipedia is written by amateurs, hobbyists and other random volunteers. (This is also probably why the articles on fictional figures can sometimes exceed those on important historical persons in length.) People who are really recognized, academically honored experts in their respective fields may simply not have the time to add all the petty details about their field to the Wiki, so this is usually done by people who have "some idea" about the matter. In my dream Wikipedia is the ultimate database of everything, and every progress in science is promptly edited to the articles by the academia's finest, but this is not in conflict with the amateurs editing the base data and caring for the layout, as long as the ones who really have deep insight in the field casually read the articles and (silently?) acknowledge them factual, or then edit the article (possibly just by marking it up with appropriate templates such as OR or citations requests/unref), or then just leave a message on the talk page as to why and what is incorrect, and hope someone will pick it up.

The bottom line now is that there is no need to cite everything (WP:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue). If you think about it, English-language Wikipedia is a hugely massive project. Wikipedia is the sixth most-frequented website in the whole Internet, and Internet is estimated to have arond 1,670,000,000 (1.67 billion) users and growing – that's almost one third of the world's population – and 48,264,850 of them (and counting) have cared enough to even register an account in the English Wikipedia for their contributions, as large number of contributions still continue to originate from anonymous IP addresses. Huge number of eyepairs can make all efforts to misinformation futile, but it is also a massive project that can succumb into chaos without good policies.

When I see an unref template it sounds alarms in my head – pay attention, you are navigating dangerous waters here. First they were very rare, now every second article seems to have a problem, at least to someone's mind. So I am starting to see this template now also in well-written articles, and even increasingly without any explanation, and I am not the only one. This is a development that we must stop – Wikipedia requires stricter guidelines to when do we require a citation. --hydrox (talk) 04:03, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Ps. I would be happy to help you with Finland-related articles. Also, rest assured that there are many Finns reading English Wikipedia. Many anglophone people maybe don't understand it that your language is the lingua franca of our time, and generally a good oral & written understanding is a basic requirement in many parts of world for getting even a basic high-end job, and this does include Finland. I do not know a single person in my immediate social neighborhood who does not frequently read English-language Wikipedia, as its coverage on most subjects is far superior to the Finnish edition. (Also a good reason as to why fi-wiki is not growing as fast as it could be :). So you can be pretty sure that there are many Finnish people reading en-wiki who have first-hand understanding to geography and culture-related subjects.

AfD nomination of Croatia–Mongolia relations

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Croatia–Mongolia relations. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Croatia–Mongolia relations (2nd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:09, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

one ring circus?

In the interest preventing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Australia–Barbados relations (2nd nomination) from devolving into a 3 ring circus, I wonder if--as an experiment--you might consider not commenting on others' !votes, or at least refrain from being the first editor to comment on the latest ridiculous !votes. In other words, maybe comment only on threads that are already going, but not initiate any on your own. Like maybe don't post "WP:JUSTAVOTE" after this. I just think these comments result in AfDs getting out of control and scaring away potential new editors, and I thnk we should be encouraging new voices as much as possible in these debates. The closing admin knows that this is WP:JUSTAVOTE and will disregard it if s/he does their job right. I don't see what's gained by calling the !vote out in the AfD. Yilloslime ^T_C 17:48, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

certainly happy to wait a few days. could you please notify Richard Norton to do the same? LibStar (talk) 00:07, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that'll do any good. RAN never responds to me when I try to engage him outside of AfDs. Forgive me for wavering in my assumption of good faith, but I kinda think inviting RAN to refrain from posting comments will just encourage him to post more comments.Yilloslime ^T_C 00:35, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I understand he is known for his vast insightful commentary in AfDs. LibStar (talk) 00:47, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Richard A. Norton

Obviously designed to test my limits, but he stayed within them. Neutral notice, and not in a place more likely to be seen by one faction than another.—Kww(talk) 03:13, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced articles

Please ensure that you check articles thoroughly for references before tagging them. This article clearly has a reference, ref improve and no footnotes are more appropriate tags. The-Pope (talk) 12:20, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

No harm

No harm is a small part of the equation. If an article advances knowledge (however esoteric) and does not harm through continued inclusion, it should be included. There are hundreds of pages of often contradictory Wikipedia rules and guidelines. The mission of the encyclopedia is to provide the sum of human knowledge to everyone on the planet... That's the fundamental principle that should guide deletion requests. If it's not selling anything, hyping anything, violating NPOV, obscene, or improper — if it is properly written and sourced, it should stay. Simple as that. There's still plenty of garbage that needs to be stopped at the gate, god knows. Carrite (talk) 05:35, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Inclusionists focus on the big picture, deletionists on the doctrinal minutia of implementation. When deletionists go after scholarly treatments of esoteric subjects, the worlds collide — and stalemate results, given Wikipedia's ill-conceived decision-making structure. Carrite (talk) 16:04, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Hey, friend

If you want to talk Wikipedia big picture with an inclusionist, drop me a line directly. Maybe we can learn from each other. MutantPop@aol.com —Tim Carrite (talk) 23:18, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

CSD declined for Oritsejolomisan Eyeguokan

Hi! Just to let you know that I have declined the speedy deletion of Oritsejolomisan Eyeguokan as it has already been declined for speedy deletion once before. I would suggest AFD or Improve. Stephen! ^Coming... 09:09, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Matthew Werkmeister

Hi there. I've just reverted your redirect on this article. Wasn't quite sure of your rationale. If you don't think he's notable, then take it to AfD. Thanks. Ged UK 10:04, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. MBisanz ^talk 02:17, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

YLM

Hi Libstar, you expressed concern that there might be censorship at play so I have decided to respond in detail as to the changes I have made as per Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia so it is not an indiscriminate collection of information. I have taken as my guidance points 4 and 5 of WP:NOTNEWS and points 2 and 3 of WP:NOTSCANDAL in regard to the following:

The first point I have to make is that this page is explicitly about the Young Liberal Movement organisation as a group. The criticisms that were recently placed on the page seem to refer to two personal events involving two individuals who happened to be members of a political party. There is no indication from a verifiable source I can find that the incidents were unequivocally endorsed and supported by a substantial group comprised of confirmed party members, or actually took place at an official gathering. Neither is there any evidence that either of the two members of the two incidents had any position in the party. I can only find terms like "allegedly" which is not a statement of fact, or claims that cannot be verified. If they are not actions by the Young Liberal Movement group, they should not be included on the Young Liberal Movement page.
Since it is not involving the Young Liberal Movement group, the question is whether it involves a notable representative of the group. As far as I can tell by what was cited neither of the two individuals held a notable position nor has ever held a notable position within the Movement or Party, so their actions cannot be considered representative.
Considering the above points one must be careful not to include events from sensationalist news in an encyclopedia like Wikipedia. Furthermore, considering the circumstances of these stories which had easy targets, short-life spans, little-fact checking, rumours, and subjects with no notability, it is therefore against Wikipedia policy for inclusion of anything that may be perceived as scandal mongering and gossip.
The events originate from a state where the Liberals and the Nationals are one party, and hence the youth wings are combined. As there is no evidence that these two individuals were Liberal-wing members, the relevancy to the page is suspect. Everything needs to be verifiable.
Whether you agree with me or not regarding the above explanations, there are still some hard facts about what is currently written on the page:
1. The first event listing has not been described in a neutral way. There is no mention of the individual's response to the incident or the political party's response.
2. The second event listing cites an opinion article (which itself cites a self-published gossip blog). This is not a valid source by Wikipedia standards. What has been included on the Wikipedia page does not even match the opinion article source, which doubles the invalidity. The quality of writing is poor and not neutral.

I believe my explanations offer sufficient evidence as to why the latest entries should be removed. I am also aware that the burden of evidence is on the editors who add and restore materials. Thank you for your consideration of this matter and I hope you will accept my justifications. If so, would you like me to delete those entries or would you like to do it? VesaTen (talk) 15:03, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Libstar, I am new to editing, though I have been reading Wikipedia for many years. A few days ago I was looking through many Australian political pages and I came across this one. It is the only one I saw that seemed to need modification as some material appeared out of place (which I'm sure is fairly common on these sorts of pages). I made my change and cited a reason, one of which was also included above. After you reverted my change and posted a few links to the rules, I spent the last few days reading them. As I understand, and will re-iterate, the burden of evidence is not on the editor that deletes content but on the one that adds or reverts content (I have not been able to find justification for the inclusions). Nevertheless, I thought it was in good faith to discuss the issue as I have done above.

Why are you attacking me instead of considering the discussion I have put forward? I have been trying to improve the encyclopedia to the best of my ability. I am not a member of the Young Liberals and I have (passively) supported both major political parties in the past. Nevertheless, even individuals with a conflict of interest have the right to identify what is misleading or incorrect on the page, as per the rules to which you linked me. I await a positive outcome from you. VesaTen (talk) 09:16, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Libstar, I am going to respond to some of your accusations in the continuing interest of good faith, but this is the last time I intend to do so without you making an attempt to actually discuss the content of the article.

"the fact you know how to edit in Wiki mark up language means you are not a newcomer": As said before, I have been reading Wikipedia for many years so I knew that words or phrases could have links attached to them. All I needed to do was to click edit on a page to see how other people did it, and then I substituted the phrases to suit what I needed.
"[you refer] to a number of guidelines that no newcomer can immediately know": As I have mentioned before, you pointed me in the right direction with all the templates you have put on my page. I did not suddenly gain knowledge in a space of a few hours between my first and second posts, I spent a few days learning.
"You only seem interested in one article": I could have moved onto other articles a long time ago if I did not have to spend so much time trying to discuss something that I immediately found un-encyclopedic or at the very least, irrelevant to the page. The WP:SPA article you linked states 'Existing editors should act fairly, civily, not bite newcomers' and that it should not be a problem if editors strive for encyclopedic content, which I do and have provided detailed explanations.
conflict of interest: I will re-iterate, even if I did have a conflict of interest, according to the the conflict of interest page it would not be an issue as long as I am engaging in discussion about the content in a reasonable fashion, which I believe I am doing. I would argue that what you have been doing, such as not involving in discussion about the content, and solely focusing on attacking me, could make you be seen as having a conflict of interest.
"large scale removal of content without discussion is not permitted": I have provided discussion. Large scale addition of contentious content is also not permitted without discussion if challenged.
"consistently failed to get consensus": This page explains that you should not revert because of 'no consensus' without entering discussion. In any case, there are only three editors involved in this matter, the other one has not been involved in any discussion (and certainly has a possible conflict of interest) so there being some sort of overwhelming consensus towards any individual side is not true.
Edit war report: I reported you in response to the placement of an edit war template on my page which I took as a serious accusation. I thought that if I were truly engaged in an edit war, you could be considered the guilty party as you did not enter discussion about the content. However, after discussion with an administrator now I have a better understanding of the rules of what constitutes an edit war.

I am still happy to work together with you to achieve a better encyclopedia, but I kindly ask again that if you, as per the guidelines, wish to defend what is on the page, attack the content of discussion put forward as opposed to attacking the individual. I do not want to seem unreasonable, so I am happy to come to a compromise by improving what is currently on the page, and would decide at a later point whether I should put out a request for comment on the matter of content deletion. Would this be to your satisfaction? VesaTen (talk) 05:37, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Libstar, my intention is to improve the encyclopedia and this is my starting point. Please note, if you see above my written intention at this moment, it is to improve what is currently on the page, so that it bears at least some standard of quality, even though you object to my deleting it outright (which as you know, I would prefer to do). If I were to start editing other pages at this very moment I leave myself open to being accused of editing for the sake of editing. Once I am satisfied at the basic level with this page (after all, I have put a lot of effort into replying to you), I will move on to other pages to improve any problems I can find. Is it ok with you if I now try to improve what is written on the page without deleting it? VesaTen (talk) 02:56, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Libstar, I intend to begin my editing experience with this article. VesaTen (talk) 06:39, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wollongong Conservatorium of Music

Thanks for the info!--Shirt58 (talk) 10:52, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Are you still watching this debate?--Kudpung (talk) 02:12, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Seven the Hardway

Hello LibStar, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Seven the Hardway, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not unambiguously promotional. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:30, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Just in case you wondered

I reverted your Indo -OZ relations surfing edit - then looked at the most immediate refs and online stuff - and yes I agree - unref's and I cannot see the surfing comps in Bali as necessarily as having anything to do with actual OZ- Indo relations at all so reverted self Satu Suro 10:48, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

ok, no problems. also if something is uncited for over a year, it has to be challenged. LibStar (talk) 10:49, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

heheh - show me the link for that - I know of some projects where such issues remain dormant for 2 years ...hmmm Satu Suro 10:51, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

no strict rule but I apply WP:BURDEN. people shouldn't dump uncited claims. LibStar (talk) 10:53, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Accusations of npov

What kind of "personal analysis" are you referring to? —Preceding unsigned comment added by SameerJaved (talk • contribs) 12:34, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for taking action on this user and Immigration to Norway, we've been struggling with this for quite some time. Best regards, Finn Rindahl (talk) 05:34, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

no problem, it was obvious this person hates migrants, and used selective information to argue his case. I doubt he is even of Pakistan origin as the name SameerJaved suggests. I am not Norwegian but have been to Norway and there is really little issue with migrants compared to other European countries. LibStar (talk) 05:36, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Preparatory school (United Kingdom)

Hi. The Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit. There is a huge backlog, and many school articles escape new page patrolling. If you feel strongly about school articles that should be deleted, please list them in an appropriate section at WP:WPSCHOOLS and we'll review them and either improve them or submit them for a deletion process if required. Alternatively, you are welcome to propose them at WP:AfD yourself where they will receive a fair hearing.--Kudpung (talk) 02:02, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Huh?

You dont seem to acknowledge http://trove.nla.gov.au/result?q=New_South_Wales_Osteopaths_Registration_Board and rely on g - you live in Australia - try using the local stuff sometime :) Satu Suro 03:36, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

3 annual reports published by the organisation does not count as third party sources. LibStar (talk) 03:44, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

True but showing over reliance on g shit is not a way to do a good AFD either :) - if you want fun try the batch of one liner bios of indonesian soccer players with nothing in g space about em either - I reckon we could put a batch up of about 50 of em for the chop :) Satu Suro 03:46, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

soccer players just need WP:ATHLETE evidence of playing highest national professional league, they don't need significant coverage necessarily. LibStar (talk) 03:49, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Indonesia and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Iha9c clearly a case of not meeting even that standard - reckon its 'lets see what we can get on' style of editing :( Satu Suro 03:59, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

btw i think using gnews as an afd tool is generally crap (within certain parameters - although the 'reach' is impressive) and if i meet it in the future will probably contest it for any australian afd :) Satu Suro 04:12, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I am only too pleased to comply with your request - but dont expect me to consider your afd proposals with any seriousness when I read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Australian_Coal_Alliance sorts of responses. I think your Afd travels do require response - if you dont like them ignore them - that would be better than being tesky about it. AGF, and all that - cheers Satu Suro 05:22, 21 October 2010 (UTC)