User talk:SageGreenRider/Archives/2015/December

This is an archive of past discussions about User:SageGreenRider. 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.

Checking on some changes

Hi SageGreenRider,

I work as Libby's assistant of sorts and noticed that there are a couple errors on her wiki (e.g. Libby was born with the last name Larsen, Reece is her husbands last name). We were wondering where you might have gotten the information that you used to update the page so we can tackle the problem at its source.

All best, Jason

Hi Jason. Happy to help. But first of all, minor point, your user name doesn't comply with wikipedia policies WP:USERNAME. You can't represent yourself as Libby Larsen if you are not in fact her. Anywho, the info on her page has been edited by multiple people and I'm confused as to who did what and why and with what authority. Maybe it's wrong at Library of Congress or something. No matter. Simply tell me 1) her birth name 2) her legal current name and I'll correct it. FWIW, I was present at the "Fantom of the Fair" world premiere and loved it. I'll remember it forever. Best, SageGreenRider (talk) 01:36, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

S. Perera

If you thought S. Perera was bad, what do you think of these?

Yes. PROD'd them SageGreenRider (talk) 01:14, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Why are you being prompted and supported by IP addresses? Jack | ^{talk page} 10:06, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, first of all "prompted" is a somewhat loaded term isn't it? I responded to a question from an IP editor. IP editors are human too, you know. As for why some IP editors support the idea of deleting articles about non-notable topics, you'll have to ask them. SageGreenRider (talk) 13:45, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi

Hi there. All these cricketers I pretty much added on the basis of "filling in the gaps" quite a while ago. I feel there needs to be considerable discussion between WP:CRIC and non-WP:CRIC editors as to whether our criteria are indeed correct, and if they are not, what needs to be done, because if single first-class appearance cricketers start getting deleted, that will be hundreds of the WP articles I've written down the drain, and we'll have to make considerable amendments to our notability criteria.

I have no problem with this but when and if it does happen, it will have to happen with sufficient public opinion and possibly significant movement of the "goalposts". "In principle" these articles pass criteria, but of course there is a significant difference between what *could* be added and what *should* be added. Bobo . 15:35, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I've had my contributions deleted and it hurts. But we're building an encyclopedia here not immortalizing ourselves via contributions. Part of the process of building an encyclopedia is arriving at a consensus on what is included as encyclopedic was is deleted as not. I think the criteria are OK. I agree with the closer on S. Perera (Kurunegala Youth Cricket Club cricketer) The result was delete. Rules of thumb are precisely that and do not replace detailed examination of the article against wider inclusion criteria. In cases where an article is reasonably shown not to meet the gng than the bar is set higher and since we do not have basic details like date of birth than it seems reasonable to give less weight to arguments for inherent notability than those arguing delete based on wider policy. Cheers! SageGreenRider (talk) 19:48, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Revert

Hi, If you look at these AFDs you will clearly see consensus is to Keep .... There isn't going to be any other outcome for these, If you disagree go to DRV!". –Davey2010^Talk 00:49, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

If the consensus is keep then why not let the process run its course with a neutral admin closure? SageGreenRider ^talk 01:03, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Warning

If you attempt to discredit someone's argument by suggesting they're drunk, without providing evidence of it ever again, I will block you for personal attacks. Yes, I know you saw sense and struck the comment out, but it was still grossly inappropriate and you should have known better than to do it in the first place. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:31, 10 December 2015 (UTC).

I really took the bait on that one, didn't I? Cheers! SageGreenRider ^talk 15:01, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

You really need to get off your high horse and accept the fact you're the only person who epically screwed up yesterday!, My comment was totally justified given the fact you went running to ANI instead of discussing it first, Incase it wasn't obvious ANI is the absolute last resort for any matter.... Yet without even discussing it you made it your first resort so ofcouse I'm going to be pissed off! (who wouldn't?!), I'll end on this - If you honestly believe running to ANI is far more productive than discussing the matter at hand then this place isn't for you!, I'm done feeding. –Davey2010^Talk 03:18, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Oi! Du calme tout le monde! --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:41, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

(GTD) Thanks

(about GTD) It's much better now, although it still ought to be expanded quite a lot to make it understandable to those who have not (yet) read the book (such as me). --Gbr2 (talk) 23:30, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! I read the book a decade ago. The article is still poorly written IMHO but I'd have to re-read the book to improve it.^{Talk to} SageGreenRider 02:58, 24 December 2015 (UTC)