User talk:MPoint

An Automated Message from HagermanBot

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! HagermanBot 06:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Policy

I have a feeling you are misinterpreting the application of WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE. I would encourage you to ask others what their interpretations on this ruling are, possibly at the Help Desk or in IRC before you nominate any more pages for Deletion. In general, I'd encourage you to look through Wikipedia policies and past rulings to get an idea of the precent involved in AfD cases, as it should help you understand what is and is not generally accepted on Wikipedia.

Good luck - Runch 20:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adding cleanup tags to needy articles is fine, but please familiarize yourself with WP:AFD and Wikipedia:Deletion_policy before nominating anymore articles for deletion. - Runch 23:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- I am familiar with AFD procedures and deletion policy. Indeed, AfDs were among the first things that I was involved in on Wikipedia, though I was an IP number at the time. My actions in AfD have been perfectly in line with policy, though perhaps in poor taste and of bad form.

I'm going to add some further comment as well, since I do think you have been mistaken in your actions. I am not saying you have violated policy or anything of that sort. I merely believe your choice of methods was poor, and I think the response on the AFD indicates an awareness on your part of the same. I do respect that you have some valid concerns about the articles, and I'm glad you intend to try that now, though I am concerned that you may be a bit overzealous in your attitude. Still, if you do at least intend to make the attempt to go for improvement first (one of my initial concerns with your actions was that I didn't even see such an attempt on your part, though I can accept that as a new user you may not have been aware of those options beforehand), I think it'll go better. And besides the already mentioned clean-up tags and talk pages, you could also try one of the various Wikiprojects from WP:BOOKS to one of the many projects on specific series/authors. FrozenPurpleCube 00:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the AfD would be a perfect example of "Do Not Edit While In a Bad Mood and Having Spent Three Hours Reading and Discussing WikiPolicy". This basically emerged from an offline discussion regarding a number of book articles, and whether they violated policy, and degenerated into an intent vs letter of the law, and ended with a "Fine, I'll put one up and and we'll end this". Mind you, the state of things had been bugging me for a while as an IP number (I've been here for a year or two, but never registered because I haven't wanted to), but I never had the time or the familiarity to make more than minor fixes. I suspect that for most articles, a small reduction in summary size joined with sales figures and an one to two paragraph analysis of the work (usually available, though it might take a bit of looking) will be enough (with the other non-summary information in most articles) to take the focus off of the summary. Assuming that there's just about any proposals on the talk pages, this will probably be the last AfD.

As for zealotry, maybe, but I've found that a can-do, energetic attitude can accomplish wonders.MPoint

Well, I've found that there are often many people who try to fix things, but jump into the situation a little too roughly and end up causing more disruption than needed. But if you try clean-up tags before AfD's, at least folks will have a bit less of a chance of being upset. I've found nominating a page for deletion tends to raise ire more than a clean-up tag. FrozenPurpleCube 01:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True, and for good reason I can say, having been on the other side of an AfD, which is why I generally avoid nominating deletions. Hence, the cleanup tags and presumed lack of further AfDs. Are we just agreeing at this point, and I've just been unclear/misunderstanding what you're saying? The answer to that will probably be clear to me after I get some more caffiene...

Well, I don't know that I disagree with you, if you intend to switch to clean-up tags in the future, that'll be great. But I do think you made a mistake with your nomination, and I remain concerned about the future. Not highly worried mind you, but enough that I felt it was worth saying something directly to you. FrozenPurpleCube 02:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you may wish to try using {{Plot}} instead of simply using Cleanup when it's appropriate. FrozenPurpleCube 00:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thank you! I could have sworn that I saw it before, but when I looked for it again, I wasn't able to find it.

Speedy Keep of the Stone of Tears deletion debate

I have closed the debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stone of Tears as a speedy keep. I believe such a close is valid since articles for deletion is not clean-up, and since you suggested in your nomination that the material should be merged. Relevant discussion above also leads me to believe speedy keep applies,[1], [2], as well as the fact that there were no deletion arguments made beyond yours. I am also invoking ignore all rules. In this instance the encyclopedia is not best served by the deletion of the articles, but rather by the improving of them. I would further point out that the specific passage at WP:NOT reads A plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic. I would suggest these ancillary articles form part of a larger topic, and that this matter is better discussed at the article talk page for the time being. I would also suggest that where you do identify potential problems in the future, you first look to fix the problems. Since the issues which led to this nomination can be addressed by adding real world context, deletion is not the appropriate solution to the problem. Hope that helps explain. Steve block Talk 10:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]