Hello Sam with regard the edit " warring" that is currently taking place on the Wikipedia Countersteering article. I have repeatedly suggested that reference be allowed to a patent application that contains a complete technical description of the vehicle in dispute. The Wheels Article was allowed as a reference but the Journalist who wrote it states within his article, that he cant fully explain the vehicle because patent applications were not lodged. Patent applications were subsequently lodged and passed the examination phase in the USPTO. see here to see the article. http://www.tiltingvehicle.net/ACS.html Under these circumstances I don't see my side of the dispute as " warring" Regards Phillip.Cambering (talk) 01:10, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Phillip. I don't know much about the article in question, but because you were repeatedly (assuming you were the logged out editor also) adding unsourced content and not discussing when reverted I warned you about edit warring. Best to take this to the Countersteering talk page to discuss the matter with Atlesn who was reverting you. Sam Walton (talk) 01:13, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Sam, Phillip here. No one knows much about the vehicle and user Atlesn in in that category. He insists on his own flawed interpretation of the patent application even though the Patent Examiner passed the application. I suggest that here is a clear example where personal prejudice is interrupting the proper function of Wikipedia. I hope that it is perfectly clear that I seek only to expand the Wikipedia article on countersteer based on a patent application that was approved for issue by the USPTO. This is now a catch22 situation because the article has been locked and the user Atlesn has demonstrated that he does not grasp the technical description contained within the patent application and is not prepared to accept reasonable negotiations. The article is now locked and incorrect and misleading descriptions remain in the article and this is not acceptable. The reverter Atlesn chooses only to reference the incomplete description in the Wheels article and not the full description in the patent application for the vehicle that is referred to in the Wheels magazine article! The reason?... he is not technically capable of understanding the patent application. Cheers PhillipCambering (talk) 01:59, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Phillip, I believe the issue is with the source being a patent rather than anything else, but you appear to be having a good discussion about it on the Countersteering talk page. If you really don't feel like you're getting anywhere with the discussion, there are a number of dispute resolution venues from which you could get outside opinions. For example if the debate is only between yourself and Atlesn, a third opinion might be in order. Sam Walton (talk) 10:36, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Sam, I don't believe I will get anywhere. There is a technical point with regard the use of patents as a reference. The stated Wikepedia policy is that a Patent/ Patent application can be referenced to prove that it[ the application] does exist and a link to it can be made. In my particular example there is a fully accepted published Wheels Magazine[ with link to it] that shows a vehicle and the journalist makes comments about it and also states that " full details cant be revealed because patent applications are yet to be lodged". This was in 1987. Then , subsequently the patent application that covered the vehicle in the Wheels magazine WAS in fact lodged. However the editors in " countersteering" insist on trying to divine how the vehicle works based solely on the description in the Wheels Magazine and wont allow me to link to the patent application that clearly describes the vehicle!!! This defies belief! So, I am stuck with editors trying to describe the vehicle based[ solely] on a description by a journalist who did not understand it fully and those same editors refuse to use the patent application which is absolutely precise in its description. I am not seeking to justify any claims by referencing a patent, all I am seeking to do is reference the patent application mentioned in the Wheels article. Then, anyone who wants to see how it is claimed to work by the inventor[ myself by the way] can look at the patent application record at WIPO. Makes sense? But No! The only words that can be used are those words directly used in the magazine... need I go on? [ I have a tendency to]. So I will be taking this matter further unless you can do something to influence the process. I am not entirely sure how you fit into this. Regards PhillipCambering (talk) 09:42, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As I said before, keep discussing on the talk page and dispute resolution venues are the way to go if your discussions with other editor(s) aren't yielding a good consensus, there's not much more I can do because a) I'm not familiar with the subject in the slightest and b) know next to nothing about patents! The page protection has expired, so I don't fit into this much at all anymore unfortunately! Sam Walton (talk) 10:31, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Sam, thanks so much for your helpful note. As I am a newbie here I am quickly learning the policies and they do make sense to me. As soon as I was alerted that using my real name might be problematic for various reasons I applied for username change following the instructions suggested to me by Hoops gza. I hope I did that correctly as the change has not come into effect yet (I did that on Nov. 26th). I also received a note from Daniel Case that required a response, but I was not able to respond on his Talk page as it is protected and I could not gain access to it. I did respond on mine, as you saw it. Thanks again for your help and any other suggestions you might have are gratefully appreciated.Miroslav Tadic (talk) 02:16, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Miroslav. I can't see any edit you've made which requests a username change (for the record the venue for doing so is at WP:CHU/S), but I think that changing your username would actually be counter-productive. We'd really prefer to know that it is you, the article subject, editing the article! As such your username is fine provided you don't make any edits to the article or its talk page for now, but instead submit verification to Wikimedia by emailing info-en@wikimedia.org. You can then keep your username and other editors will know for sure who they're talking to :) Sam Walton (talk) 10:39, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So, now that you're a admin, here's your first hands-on experience in giving an admin opinion. Do you agree with my non-admin keep closure of this AfD? On first glance, this looks very uncontentious, but the nom seems very determined to get the article deleted. Davey2010 had closed this, but it was reverted after the nom came to Davey's talk page and said that he was going to take the closure to DRV. --Biblioworm18:33, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ha :) I do agree, though I'm not 100% certain I agree with the consensus because I think the nom makes good arguments, it's fairly obviously a consensus to keep. Sam Walton (talk) 20:35, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Many of those articles have been around for years (and a good number tagged for notability for just as long, one from 2009 istr). If they've been around for so long without notable sources, then that's not my fault. They're not notable, full stop. That's self evident. I will continue to nominate each and every one of them. doktorbwordsdeeds14:13, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
doktorb, if an article doesn't have sources that doesn't necessarily mean it isn't notable. I'm just asking for you to take a little more time to check whether they are indeed notable in the future because most of the articles you've nominated so far have been. Sam Walton (talk) 14:26, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I refute your opinion that they are notable. They have not achieved anything, the sources largely just prove that they exist(ed), not that they did anything. I will continue to nominate them, and others, as I see fit. doktorbwordsdeeds14:34, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello everyone, and may we wish you all a happy holiday season. As you will probably already know, the 2015 WikiCup begins in the new year; there is still time to sign up. We have a few important announcements concerning the future of the WikiCup.
We would like to announce that Josh (J Milburn) and Ed (The ed17), who have been WikiCup judges since 2009 and 2010 respectively, are stepping down. This decision has been made for a number of reasons, but the main one is time. Both Josh and Ed have found that, over the previous year, they have been unable to devote the time necessary to the WikiCup, and it is not likely that they will be able to do this in the near future. Furthermore, new people at the helm can only help to invigorate the WikiCup and keep it dynamic. Josh and Ed will still be around, and will likely be participating in the Cup this following year as competitors, which is where both started out.
In a similar vein, we hope you will all join us in welcoming Jason (Sturmvogel 66) and Christine (Figureskatingfan), who are joining Brian (Miyagawa) to form the 2015 WikiCup judging team. Jason is a WikiCup veteran, having won in 2010 and finishing in fifth this year. Christine has participated in two WikiCups, reaching the semi-finals in both, and is responsible for the GA Cup, which she now co-runs.
The discussions/polls concerning the next competition's rules will be closed soon, and rules changes will be made clear on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring and talk pages. While it may be impossible to please everyone, the judges will make every effort to ensure that the new rules are both fair and in the best interests of the competition, which is, first and foremost, about improving Wikipedia.
"Good Morning" Samwalton9: Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia! 13 December is the day when Swedes perplex the rest of the world by showing up way too early in the morning dressed in white tunics, candles in their hair, singing and bringing saffron buns and breakfast in bed to nice people. Hope you have a bright day! –
w.carter-Talk01:30, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please can you keep an eye on this page. I have left a message on the article's talk page as there is an IP adding and removing content with no sources and explanations. - Lips Are Movin (talk) 09:42, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Lips Are Movin, there doesn't seem to be enough activity to warrant protecting or blocking so I'm not going to do anything for now. If the same IP keeps being disruptive, leave them talk page warnings and report them to the appropriate noticeboard (WP:ANEW/WP:AIV). If multiple IPs or new users are vandalising or being disruptive, please report the page to WP:RFPP for protection. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 11:33, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/CloseAFD. I am inviting you to try the improved script! It makes relisting and closing debates much easier and now works in Vector. Support has been added to deal with some incompatibility it had with other gadgets (like wikEd). It also makes use of the new relist count parameter in {{Relist}} to make that process easier. Please do check out the description page and give it a try! Thanks. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c)16:25, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You seems to be using User:Mr.Z-man/closeAFD.js which seems to be a much more complex script, I haven't looked through the script yet (wasn't aware it existed), but I wouldn't suggest you change anything at this time. I'll have to get in touch with Mr.Z-man and see if we can collaborate to merge the two scripts or add some of the new features to his. Thanks for your reply, I learned something from it. :) — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c)16:37, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is there to be no discussion acknowledgment of the opposition to Crisco 1992's appointment as a TFA coordinator regarding his other positions scheduling content on the Main Page? Imzadi 1979→00:45, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Imzadi1979: Sorry for not addressing this directly in my close message, but when I referred to further discussion on the structure of TFA this is one of the aspects I had in mind. If you think that a discussion regarding whether an editor should be able to coordinate more than one main page section is worth having then by all means go ahead. Sam Walton (talk) 00:57, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
New Wikipedia Library Accounts Now Available (December 2014)
Other partnerships with accounts available are listed on our partners page. Do better research and help expand the use of high quality references across Wikipedia projects: sign up today!
--The Wikipedia Library Team.00:25, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
You can host and coordinate signups for a Wikipedia Library branch in your own language. Please contact Ocaasi (WMF).
I have noticed that Randykitty also demonstrated a poor judgement on other occasions as well:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:L._Stephen_Coles
In this discussion Ollie231213 found comments by Randykitty to be an insult and uninformed, while Blacksun1942 described them as hyperbolic and quite defamatory.
I agree with them, and believe that Randykitty activities are both arrogant and ignorant, and they do more harm to Wikipedia.
I wonder whether there is any way to ban Randykitty to edit articles for the topics (aging and longevity studies) where he is ignorant?
Please advise.
Thank you!
-- Biodemographer (talk) 02:43, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Biodemographer. First, just to clarify, I didn't decide to keep it, I just assessed the consensus of the discussion to be that the article should be kept - it wasn't exactly my decision to keep the article. There is a process for banning editors from editing certain topics; such a ban is known as a topic ban and is usually enacted by consensus of a group of editors. Personally I think Randykitty has been civil enough in that conversation and is merely trying to discuss whether the article subject meets Wikipedia notability policies. If, however, you and others think otherwise then this section of the Civility policy page should be helpful to you. Sam Walton (talk) 00:22, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ultimately, content on Wikipedia must be verifiable by citation to reliable sources. If you're voting keep at an AfD you need to show, specifically, that these sources exist. As no one has been able to demonstrate that the subject passes the general notability guidelines, there is a consensus to delete. Sam Walton (talk) 13:25, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
You've made a serious error here. If this is the precise rule, then for cases like this, where the evidence can only really be found in print media, it's entirely self-defeating in the face of the combination of disinterest from topic specialists and total ignorance from non-specialists.
I'll give you an example - there used to be a bus company called London Northern which nobody who knows about buses would argue wasn't notable. Yet despite the fact it ceased operating well before Wikipedia existed, it still has no article. On this entire site, it gets a two line mention. That's all Wikipedia has managed to achieve for a significant London bus company which ran hundreds of buses during a time of great upheaval in the system, under these rules. That's pathetic.
In the light of that miserable failure, how likely is it that Wikipedia will ever manage to properly summarise all the information out there about UK bus operators like NIBS that has been published in reliable sources? Indeed, the way you wrote it, it can almost be said Wikipedia isn't even sure if the company even exists, which is obviously nonsense (an independent online mention was discovered by me within a minute, which is indeed strange given the claims).
If you continue to do what you did here, and basically put all of the onus on the keep side to prove, with precise page numbers/issue numbers/ISBN numbers, what the average topic specialist simply knows already (and can articulate that reality here well enough to show it's not simply BS in of itself), you're not going to see any improvement in Wikipedia's already pathetic coverage of bus related content in any way, because there are editors like Charles who think it has no place on Wikipedia at all. Worse, you have people here like Dave who claims to be a topic specialist, yet it's clear given the evidence this is a total lie. But it seems you can get away with all that on Wikipedia though, and the only crime you can actually commit is to not respond with 'how high' when editors like Dave and Charles say 'jump'.
There can be no doubt at all what this supposed consensus was the result of - a combination of Dave, Aycliffe and AmaryllisGardener simply not finding anything in a 5 second Google search and then ignorantly assuming (and in one case specifically stating) that this equates to proof of non-notability. It's clear that neither Dave or Aycliffe has ever read a book or magazine about buses, and AmaryllisGardener amazingly wasn't even aware that "sources" even includes books and magazines. Add to that Charles who thinks the same, but whose claim must be seen in light of the fact he clearly thinks Wikipedia shouldn't have a single article about any bus operator, so much so that he's willing to stretch the interpretation of NCORP well beyond its limits (you will note that, given the "Audience" section is disputed, and given the fact Buses Magazine is nationally distributed and the market leader, his dismissal of it as "specialist" was a weak argument at best).
Much has been made by these people of my reluctance to actually "fix" this article. I just have one question - why does anyone at Wikipedia think there is anyone out there who would willingly do this work, for free, given that this sort of debate, with all its patent errors and warped logic, is by all accounts, standard practice on Wikipedia? In summary, newsflash - when read by actual subject experts like me, Wikipedia is a steaming pile of crap, because it doesn't even come close to summarising all the available "deep" information that's out there in reliable independent sources, apparently because the vast majority isn't online. And instead of motivating people like me to fix that, all you're doing is motivating me to tell any other experts who might be stupid enough to get involved, not to bother, as they'll simply be completely wasting their time for very little reward. Time that can still be spent getting paid to write about this subject in other, more credible, places.
Here's the reality: NIBS was notable yesterday. It will still be notable tomorrow. Charles aside, who is simply trying to push the envelope, the skepticism of that obvious reality was based on NOTHING. Even if NIBS gets taken over tomorrow (which in the current climate, can't be ruled out), it will still be notable in 10 years time, as far as I understand how the concept works here. It will certainly still be being mentioned in books and magazines published in 10 years time (although by then you might get your wish and ignorant people like Dave will be able to access it all instantly and with zero effort or expense). Yet I feel confident in predicting that companies like NIBS (and London Northern and all others) will still never have an article on Wikipedia. Because Dave sure as hell won't be writing them, and at this rate, he'll have pissed off everyone here currently who might have tried (and I've yet to see any evidence there's anyone actually here who will put up with his crap and do it, even though he claims there are several). Notforlackofeffort (talk) 19:28, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sam, Notforlackofeffort has been posting to Davey2010's tp all day, despite the fact that Davey wants NFLOE to leave him alone. One example is [1], where NFLOE states that he has "ammunition that I can use against you [Davey]", and says other inappropriate things like "don't say you [Davey] weren't told". --AmaryllisGardenertalk20:39, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
From what I can gather NFLOE is basically pissed off with the fact I "willy-nilly go around nominating bus-related articles" .... I've done my best to patch things up (I've even apologized!) [2] .... Not much else I can do really... –Davey2010Merry Xmas / Happy New Year21:01, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Pull the other one Dave. You've deleted what, three? of my messages without comment, just today. You've ignored countless more in the past few days. And now you're getting upset at getting a single taste of your own medicine? Boo hoo. I'm sorry you don't like being summarily ignored, but to bring it down to your level, you started it. Maybe it will make you pause next time before doing it to someone else. As it happens, your message to me was completely delusional and so didn't even warrant a reply, although it did at least confirm to me my suspicion that you've been ignoring pretty much everything I've said all along - there's no other reason why you would still be making the same nonsense claims about what I like and what I want to do. As for you claiming not to know why you've fucked me off, well, that took the biscuit. That's borderline Charles style wind-uppery that. Notforlackofeffort (talk) 21:56, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, perhaps the situation might look a little differently to you if you focused less on the tone of what people say, and more on the intent/result of their actions. Davey (and you) have succeeded in removing from Wikipedia an article which can and should have an article here based on your own rules, simply because you refuse to believe the company has been covered adequately in print media. You've given zero reason why that's a good outcome for Wikipedia. Seen in that light, it hardly matters what your tone is, does it? Perhaps if more people objected more strongly to actions like that, instead of trying to sweep it under the carpet and/or blame the other person for not 'fixing' the article for them, maybe Wikipedia would be better all round. Notforlackofeffort (talk) 17:01, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
At AfD, Notforlackofeffort, the article is !voted on as is, not as it could possibly be, nor is it !voted on how someone says it's notable but doesn't prove it by adding the sources. If it's garbage, it can be deleted. If someone wants it kept, then it's up to them to add the sources, etc. so it doesn't get deleted. --AmaryllisGardenertalk17:09, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Have it your way then. I suspect a lot of that is not actually how Wikipedia is supposed to work, but I'm not inclined to check at this time. Obviously your claims of how things work should be seen in light of the fact you weren't even aware that "sources" can include print media, which seems like a pretty basic error to me. I guess the world will just have to be happy that a couple of random people at Afd decided it was "garbage" (even though it didn't contain any lies as far as I could tell), and even though to subject experts, it's absence on Wikipedia is an absurdity, it is now gone. Never to return (because I'm not seeing a single person here who has the time/patience/knowledge to (re)-write it). In that light, good luck convincing any subject expert that Wikipedia is worth them spending any time on. That's the difference between subject experts and randoms - the first class of people can usually tell when someone has made a good argument that a company is obviously notable even under your own pretty loose rules (and therefore isn't going to unreasonably require them to spend many hours chasing down specific issue numbers and ISBN numbers), and then there's the second group which apparently includes people like you and Dave, who take a quite different approach to logic and common sense, and will insist that their view should prevail, even though they clearly have no idea about the subject or the media that over it, and put in ZERO effort to repudiate the subject expert's view with some common sense or subject specific arguments of their own. Notforlackofeffort (talk) 17:46, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just so you'll know, I've known for a long time that print media can be used for references. I've cited books from both my personal collection and Google Books from when I started contributing and I still do. --AmaryllisGardenertalk18:44, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Kindly stop trying to delete bus company articles just because you've personally never heard of them, can't find any information about them in a 5 second Google search, and don't know where to look for sources in the print media, and I'll have no need to go anywhere near your talk page. Notforlackofeffort (talk) 17:01, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Notforlackofeffort. I'm sorry this hasn't been a great Wikipedia experience, and I understand why you're frustrated about this. I really just assessed the consensus of the discussion so I'm not really the most qualified to speak about the quality of sources or to say whether the topic definitely is or isn't notable. That said, I'd be happy to explain the process that was carried out here in the hopes that it makes the situation more understandable.
I'm sure you're familiar with the policy by now but every article subject on Wikipedia needs to be deemed notable. There are plenty of articles existing which don't meet the threshold, and Articles for Deletion helps us have discussions about which topics should be included in this global encyclopedia - as much as it might sound great for Wikipedia to have information on every topic, ultimately that's unreasonable; it would be horribly hard to maintain and a complete mess! As such we need to decide what is and isn't notable. Notability is defined by the subject having received coverage in reliable sources of published information, which has been deemed to be a good way of not only deciding what topics are important enough but also provides a means of ensuring that the information in the article is true. By citing the article's information to these sources we can say 'here's where I found this information' such that it doesn't seem to just be pulled out of thin air.
In AfDs, if we're going to decide that an article is worth keeping, someone needs to say "here is the source coverage" so that other editors can say 'oh yeah, this is a notable topic.' A good example is this recent AfD - the nominator didn't think that the subject was notable but I found some sources, linked them in the AfD, so they withdrew the nomination; the topic had been shown to be notable.
In the case of NIBS, if you wanted to prove beyond a doubt that the subject was notable we needed to see that these reliable sources containing information on the company exist - just an issue number for the magazine you mentioned would have been a start down the right path for this. Given that, the link you posted, and one or two other sources, you'd have probably convinced people in the discussion that the subject was notable - merely stating that you know the company is notable and making comments on the other editors in the discussion really didn't help that.
Ultimately, I'd love for people who want to learn about NIBS to be able to come to Wikipedia to find the information, but without being able to verify information in the article we just can't have an article on them right now. If you spent the time you've spent arguing with other editors writing an article for them including the reliable sources you say exist you could probably have a good article written by now! We need people like you, who know what the good sources are and have background knowledge of the subject, to write articles like this; I urge you to do so if you really want an article on the company here on Wikipedia. Wikipedia isn't finished. Sam Walton (talk) 20:55, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I can see this is an institutional issue then. Firstly, I did a hell of a lot more than just say 'I know NIBS is notable'. I would certainly appreciate some acknowledgement of that basic fact before I started appreciating the experience of being on Wikipedia.
Second, and this is where I think you are all being completely delusional - I have spent at most 2 hours objecting to this nonsensical decision. If any of you think it takes the same amount of time to find the issue numbers, ISBNs and other details to actually use to stand up even a basic version of an article on a company like NIBS, you are sorely mistaken. While I might be familiar with the publications, it's not like I have a library of them all (with full index) in my house. I don't even have an automatic subscription to any magazine, I just buy at a whim. I have at most, 10 bus related books in my actual possession. The idea I could have referenced that article in 7 days is a joke, even if I wanted to, and even if it wasn't in the middle of the holidays.
But here's where it gets ridiculous though. And of you could find the issue number yourselves if you really wanted to - I presume you know how to use a telephone. What's stopping Dave from phoning up the publisher of Buses Magazine to simply ask them what issue it was they covered this company? Or even send him a back issue so he could add info himself? I'll tell you what's stopping him - he doesn't give a toss, that's what. He wants other people to clean up his mistakes. He has "better things to do".
Honestly, I appreciate you trying to explain the process, but I've picked up most of that already. And in truth, you make it sound like I was simply talking bollocks, when in reality, the only people doing that were those on the other side, who claimed not to be able not find anything online, or that the article needs "websites" to prove notability, both of which are complete nonsense.
Do you actually want to know what this 'process' looks like from the outside? Here's what:
Dave: NIBS is not notable, I can't find anything about in online - we must delete it!
Random1: me neither
Random2: me neither
Me: As a topic expert, can I say your premise appears flawed, the facts of the matter indicate it would be foolish to assume it's not been covered in the print media, and indeed I know of at least one time it has been. Also, I have also found this news report online which gives some indication of its importance for reason x/y/z
Dave & randoms: (white noise/general whinging/nonsense/silence)
Charles: Buses Magazine doesn't meet NCORP
Me: I think you'll find it does, for reason x/y/z
Charles: silence
You: Yeah, let's just ignore this guy, he's obviously a mad man. Let's just get rid of it, and hope someone else notices our mistake later and fixes it
You might very well 'need' people like me to find the sources to support articles like NIBS (and all the other articles you will have to delete under the same standard), but frankly you can get stuffed. I would be completely wasting my time from where I'm standing. It might take me several days to 'fix' NIBS, in which time two or three other articles might have been proposed for deletion on the same nonsense grounds. And as I've already said, the absence of articles like London Northern show that there are HUGE gaps in coverage of this topic, and it appears to be getting worse, not better (presumably because of things like this).
I happened to stumble across List of bus operators of the United Kingdom inn the course of all this today, and when someone like me casts a critical eye over a list like that, with a working knowledge of how much 'deep' coverage a UK bus operator usually gets in the print media relative to its size, I can only laugh.
It's beyond obvious to me that none of you have the slightest idea of what you're doing, and so I would clearly be wasting my time getting involved, putting my actual time and effort into improving the mess that currently passes for coverage of this subject here currently. Notforlackofeffort (talk) 21:48, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No answer? Can't say I'm surprised. And now I have someone else telling me that it would only take a couple of hours to write an article on London Northern. I don't know where these people get their information from, but to be able to write these articles in this sort of time, they must have vast libraries at their disposal, with perfect and completely comprehensive indexes, and they must be able to read/interpret/summarise information at lightening speed. Based on the current coverage in Wikipedia of this topic, it's pretty obvious they do not. Notforlackofeffort (talk) 17:01, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, my patience for reading walls of text is just wearing a little thin. I'm not really sure what you wanted a response on anyway, your last post was just paragraphs of your opinion on why you think Wikipedia is the worst thing to ever happen. If you want an article on NIBS, then write one, if you don't, then don't have a go at other people for not writing one. I don't know what else to say, it really just seems like you're here looking for an argument. Sam Walton (talk) 17:06, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's pretty obvious what I would have liked to hear from you, but I suppose intentionally ignoring people is the way of Wikipedia. This situation is obviously more complex than you phrased it - I am not 'having a go' at people for not writing the article, I'm having a go at them for having got it deleted for no good reason at all (and while you gave reasons, they're not very good and didn't really address what actually happened anyway, which is presumably why you're not willing to continue discussing it). And I've already given you extensive reasons why 'write it yourself' isn't really going to cut it as a solution. I'm not going to write it, and neither are they. Nobody is going to. Even though it is an eminently appropriate subject for a Wikipedia article, according to Wikipedia's own rules (and a passable first draft already existed). Perhaps we just have different ideas on what's the worst thing Wikipedia could be doing. Me, I think it's this. You, well, you clearly put more value on, well, I don't know to be honest. Obviously you have absolutely no interest in the subject matter, just like Dave (despite his claims), and the others, so I guess it's not really all that important to any of you at all that Wikipedia's already poor coverage of this area just got a little bit poorer, for no good reason, and despite the best efforts of a subject expert to inform you why your reasoning was completely erroneous and was simply flying in the face of common sense (such as the very obvious fact that the list I linked above has several companies on it which are actually smaller than NIBS). Not that you can even tell for half of them, because the articles are so crap they don't even give such basic details as that (for the reasons I've extensively documented). Which merely leaves me still wondering why any of you think this sort of approach would motivate me, or anyone else who realises this is the way of Wikipedia, to fix/write the articles for you. You must really think people are fools. Notforlackofeffort (talk) 17:46, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jumpscare, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Horror. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi. The edit to the Triboulet article about his death appears to have been a translation of the sane section in the French article, which was written a while ago. The French section has no sources either though, so they could both be incorrect. |Randomno|WP01:30, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
*shrug* probably, I don't know how strict the French Wikipedia is with their sourcing requirements. The statement has been re-added with a source here now anyway. Sam Walton (talk) 15:39, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is just to confirm that you're on the panel that will close the Cultural Marxism AfD. Black Kite has recused himself, so we're waiting on a third administrator. Spartaz is also on the panel. RGloucester — ☎17:21, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Spartaz, do you think there's been enough discussion to close this tomorrow or could relisting be a good idea? I'd be tempted towards relisting if not for my worry that the next week will be nothing but SPAs and I'd rather not prolong this more than necessary. Sam Walton (talk) 17:30, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to have been an extensive discussion already - I can't imagine we are going to see any new policy based arguments emerging. spas can be ignored if that is the only concern. The only benefit of keeping it open is to see what traction the different arguments gain but I fear this has already been tainted by the offsite canvassing. SpartazHumbug!19:10, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I broadly agree with you and would also close as delete. I would further salt and redirect when a consensus on target has emerged. I have written up my views under yours. What do you think? SpartazHumbug!18:38, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your analysis sounds sensible, though did you mean that the keep votes were weak rather than delete votes? You appear to contradict yourself on your third bullet point. I'll wait to see what Huon thinks but I think waiting for a consensus for the redirect location is indeed a sensible idea. Sam Walton (talk) 18:42, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delay; real life interfered. I'd assume everybody interested in that article was well aware of that discussion (presuming they weren't on holiday); I agree with Spartaz that we'd be very unlikely to see any new policy-based arguments if this were kept open another week. Huon (talk) 18:58, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I thought so :) Yes that might be a good idea. I'll start a section on the AfD talk page for our discussion from here on, including my result comment. I'll leave you to move your message across when you're ready. We can discuss further the details of our agreed consensus there then, I agree that would be best for transparency. Sam Walton (talk) 19:01, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to make this pretty simple: please undelete the revision history and talk page discussions related to this article. There was literally one person who called for "delete and redirect" and nothing in the rationale of you or the other two admins gives a valid basis for taking that particular action, which should generally be reserved to very select cases. I am not going to contest the redirect decision since that would have a reasonable basis in the discussion, but only request that you restore the relevant revision and talk page history.--The Devil's Advocatetlk.cntrb.07:32, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There were plenty of people who called for delete and even the keep side acknolwledged there was a problem with the content. 3 separate admin independantly came up with the same answer. SpartazHumbug!08:22, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Three admins making the same bad call does not change the fact that it was a bad call. Aside from the single "delete and redirect" statement, only one person mentioned a redirect from what I could tell, and that was to explicitly argue against retaining a redirect. AfD is not for clean-up as you well know so claims that there were issues with the content are not relevant to a deletion decision. You don't delete the revision history of a redirect because the content therein is of low quality.--The Devil's Advocatetlk.cntrb.08:41, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
yeah you can. If the content is determined to be flawed or otherwise problematical it is more likely to be deleted prior to redirect then not. The content has already been rejected as a merge so no licensing reason to keep it. SpartazHumbug!09:32, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please see User:Samwalton9/Cultural Marxism AfD to see my summary of the votes I considered and what they voted for. I felt the consensus overall was to delete, but since many users brought up merge or redirect targets that a post-deletion redirect would be sensible. There's now a discussion occurring as to whether the redirect target should change which is absolutely fine with me. Sam Walton (talk) 12:29, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with Samwalton9 and Spartaz. There was a consensus that the content was inherently flawed and should not be kept. That the title should be redirected somewhere else is a separate issue. Huon (talk) 14:05, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What I'm trying to get at is, if you have a need for the talk page material then I'm happy to undelete it into an archive for use, I'm just not entirely confident it's necessary right now. Sam Walton (talk) 21:43, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think there is no reason why the talk pages or article revision history had to be deleted at all and it was not clearly supported by that discussion as you claim. A redirect would be supported, hence why I am not suggesting you reverse that aspect of the decision. Should there be a reasonable case for restoring the article at some future date, having access to all that information would be important for any prospective recreation.--The Devil's Advocatetlk.cntrb.23:27, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well deletion review is thataway if you don't think the consensus was judged correctly. As I said before, and as you alluded to, if someone thinks they can make good use of the talk page and can present a convincing argument for needing to read it then I'll be more than happy to make it available. Sam Walton (talk) 23:30, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Samwalton9, I don't see Hokkien Indonesian page, Hakka Indonesian page or Mandarin Indonesian page, etc. Cantonese is not Indonesian. They are Chinese just like Hokkien, Hakka and Mandarin. So why is there a Cantonese Indonesian page? Can you please delete that page? Sonic99 (talk) 19:14, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Sonic99, I can't delete that page speedily because to me that seems like a reasonable search term. If you would like to suggest that the redirect be deleted, you can start a discussion at redirects for deletion. The relevant guideline page you'll want to have a quick read of is WP:REDIRECT. Hope that helps, Sam Walton (talk) 19:18, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think I understand what you mean. But I guess there are two options here; we could either create those two redirects, and then we have a proper set, or delete the Cantonese one. I'm not familiar with this area at all, but do you not think "Cantonese Indonesian" might be something someone searches, looking for Chinese Indonesians? The article does contain a section about Cantonese people. That said, it also discusses Hokkien people too, so perhaps a Hokkien Indonesian redirect would be suitable. What do you think? Sam Walton (talk) 19:28, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. You can create Hokkien Indonesian and Mandarin Indonesian page redirects. There are more Hokkien speakers than Cantonese speakers in Indonesia. Sonic99 (talk) 19:38, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sam, in closing the discussion I initiated, you have allowed Ssilver to make statements, unresponded to, which are outright lies. I understand that the drame boards are full of people getting outraged by people stepping on their toes and obesessing about pedantic issues such as whether "that" or "which" should be used in this, that or whichever sentence, but I AM concerned that lying can be tolerated in a permanent record, albeit one that's unlikely to be read by anyone other than archive-obsessives. If I seem rather fixated on this, I must say it's because I've been very shocked by the brazen dishonesty displayed by this editor. p.s deleting an edit, of course, does not really mean it's been read. Anyone can delete an edit without reading it. Paul B (talk) 01:06, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There was nothing further worth discussing at that location, AN/I is for incidents which require admin intervention; this ended up not being such a case and further discussion would have just clogged the board. Ultimately, as you say, next to no one will read that discussion now that it's archived, and my advice to you is to just forget about it and focus on the content you were discussing. Agreed that deleting a comment and not responding to it isn't particularly helpful, but as I mentioned in the closing notice, if you post your message on the talk page of the article you're discussing no one's going to remove it. Sam Walton (talk) 01:12, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've been away for a while so I'm still finding my way around again - would you happen to have a link to the discussion re: the Cultural Marxism situation. I know the AfD was closed, and agree that a redirect was a good compromise FWIW. — Ched : ? 21:05, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You've managed to be on GamerGate's shit list now. More than likely you're going to be kept an eye on by some people. Just wanted to mention that possibility. GamerPro6407:13, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I just mean you are kinda on their bad side deleting the Cultural Marxism page and talking on the GamerGhazi page, which is considered the Anti-GamerGate subreddit. You got mentioned on KotakuInAction, which is the Pro-side's subreddit. Which is also how I came to this assumption. GamerPro6417:21, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Round one of the 2015 WikiCup has begun! So far we've had around 80 signups, which close on February 5. If you have not already signed up and want to do so, then you can add your name here. There have been changes to to several of the points scores for various categories, and the addition of Peer Reviews for the first time. These will work in the same manner as Good Article Reviews, and all of the changes are summarised here.
Remember that only the top 64 scoring competitors will make it through to the second round, and one of the new changes this year is that all scores must be claimed within two weeks of an article's promotion or appearance, so don't forget to add them to your submissions pages! If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAN, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! Figureskatingfan (talk·contribs), Miyagawa (talk·contribs) and Sturmvogel 66 (talk·contribs)
If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list or alternatively to opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Opted-out of message delivery to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:51, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
New donations, including real-paper-and-everything books, e-books, science journal databases, and more
New TWL coordinators, conference news, a new open-access journal database, summary of library-related WMF grants, and more
Spotlight: "Global Impact: The Wikipedia Library and Persian Wikipedia" - a Persian Wikipedia editor talks about their experiences with database access in Iran, writing on the Persian project and the JSTOR partnership
Sam, I edited the Reddit page to add Gamergate stuff. Looking into it more critically, you're right - I couldn't pinpoint Reddit as the main focal point of the issues (though I do believe it to be where it hit critical mass) and couldn't find sources to back up my theory. Still, I appreciate your reversal edit and it at least made me look at my contribution more objectively.
George Ho, it doesnt seem that many edits have been made recently so I dont see the harm in letting the protection end. Making requests to WP:RFPP for things like this in the future is a better idea by the way :) Sam Walton (talk) 10:04, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It was undeleted. Deletion, according to the deletion policy page, is removing "the current version and all previous versions from public view". All these versions are now in public view, meaning that the article is no longer deleted, and that community consensus has been overturned. RGloucester — ☎16:21, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You had previously commented on the possibility of a "comment" committee at the idea lab. At Talk:Landmark Worldwide, I have started a discussion regarding possibly starting a "trial run" of such an idea. Your input in the discussion would of course be welcome. John Carter (talk) 21:45, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I vaguely remember the proposal but I have next to no knowledge of Landmark Worldwide and am a little busy at the moment. As such I'm sorry but I'm unlikely to participate in the discussion. Sam Walton (talk) 21:50, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure you want no more involvement in this matter, but it is getting quite annoying. As you are aware, you undeleted the talk pages of the Cultural Marxism article at the request of some editors. They've not done anything with the material, and in fact completely circumvented the deletion review process, thereby making such an undeletion completely unnecessary. It is quite clear that all of this is a grand attempt to render the AfD moot, which has essentially been accomplished at this point. However, it is quite clear that these archives should be redeleted, as they are not being used for anything, and should not've been undeleted in the first place. RGloucester — ☎23:24, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Sam. I note you said at Project video games that if Proteus (video game) didn't pass its FAC this time you would probably give up. While that would be understandable, I think that would be a shame, so just throwing it out there, if it doesn't pass feel free to contact me if you nominate it again and I will support it 'as per previous FAC'. Hopefully between me and Tezero the article will then have two immediate supports. Also don't feel obligated but just letting you know I also have my own video-game related article currently nominated for FAC - see here. All comments are welcome. Have a nice day. Freikorp (talk) 12:06, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Here's something interesting (?): At List of DHX Media programs I notice two accounts named in the style of an entity, Kicking Horse Country Transit System and Central Florida Regional Transit Authority. I believe I reported one or both of those as username vios. This article was also edited by Ile-de-France. At 9 Story Media Group we find Carpenter Body Company and Metropolitan Transportation Authority. This article was also edited by Ile-de-France. That's about as far as I've gotten with this. It may be unrelated. This guy EstebanJals is probably behind those corporate-sounding names, because I followed some of the newer accounts' edits around a little and happened upon user Horizon Coach Lines of Los Angeles. Anyhow, maybe I'm fishing. Esteban seems to orient toward kids' TV and transportation and the IPs I've seen linked to him, seem to originate in California, not France. Probably nothing. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:02, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, could be a connection. I suspect that the IPs are proxies what with the ease with which the user appears to be able to hop between them, and given that one of them is now a blocked proxy. Sam Walton (talk) 19:04, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So here's something interesting: Last week at Nickelodeon Movies I had a problem with IP 72.81.137.16 repeatedly adding the vapor projects Mighty Mouse and The Wubbzy Movie to the article, attempting to proliferate a hoax that these were going to be released soon. From what I can tell, these were films that the network was considering, but the only references we have are from several years ago. (Hence my calling it "vapor"). The IP geolocates to Owings Mills, Maryland, US. ISP: Verizon FiOS. Their English was bizarrely incoherent, for instance here, which made me think that maybe they weren't from the US. A few days later at the same article, IP 109.9.5.158 comes by and adds the Mighty Mouse project, plus a number of other vapor projects like Mystery of The Lil' Pride. The Variety reference that supports this is from 2010. Would you care to guess where this IP geolocate? Meh, I'll spare you, it's Ile de France, ISP: SFR. I don't know what this means yet, if anything. Could be a coincidence. I will mention that the Ile de France user is adding this content to a "Films abandoned in development" section, which would be an appropriate addition for vapor. So I don't yet have a sense that these edits are pernicious. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:35, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was not attempting to deceive. The consensus was clearly keep. One person's proposal against the vast majority is not consensus. How is one person's proposal to redirect suddenly community consensus? Please explain. Is it because the person closing the entry decided to adopt that single user's proposal, that it became community consensus? The consensus was keep, at least to anyone capable of reading the discussion. Only one person proposed a redirect. If anything is deceptive, it's portraying a single person's proposal as community consensus. I would like a follow-up explanation otherwise I intended to pursue this further. I am amazed by this outcome.--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 22:27, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Do you agree with my non-admin keep closure of this AfD? On first glance, this looks very uncontentious, but the nom seems very determined to get the article deleted. Davey2010 had closed this, but it was reverted after the nom came to Davey's talk page and said that he was going to take the closure to DRV. --Biblioworm 18:33, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/CloseAFD. I am inviting you to try the improved script! It makes relisting and closing debates much easier and now works in Vector. Support has been added to deal with some incompatibility it had with other gadgets (like wikEd). It also makes use of the new relist count parameter in {{Relist}} to make that process easier. Please do check out the description page and give it a try! Thanks. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 16:25, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Thank you — Revi 14:01, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
.jpg)
The Wikipedia Library
