User talk:Samwalton9/RfA/Onel5969

Pre-RfA

While looking through your contributions these are some topics that stood out to me as things that users may ask you questions about, or even cite a neutral or oppose vote to. I wanted to discuss them with you partly to clarify them for myself, but also to give you a heads up that you might need to answer questions about them during your RfA. To be clear, I personally don't see any of these things as a big deal.

You semi-retired earlier this year and started editing again in October; could you briefly discuss what led to this?

In a nutshell, I got tired of some of the POV pushing which can occur on the site through the inconsistent applications of guidelines and policies. After reflection, I realized that I missed being part of the project, and doing what I could to improve it, so I returned.

You've created a large number of - sometimes short - articles on populated places. What motivated this, and what are your thoughts on routine creation of short articles generally? (The topic of creating masses of stubs on a particular topic has sometimes been contentious, though I appreciate that's not exactly what you've done, with many of the articles being longer)

Two reasons. And let me point out, it's not simply geographical articles, but I've also created some stubs on film articles as well. First, I joined the Wikipedia:WikiProject Red Link Recovery and through that, I've created quite a few articles, and some of them stubs. Second, sometimes I get a project in my head (like I did with Places in Arizona), and I start to work on it. Initially, my intent was to create a stub for each red line in the list, but there were editors who did not feel that simply because a location had a GNIS number, it passed WP:GEOLAND. Several of those articles were deleted. During those AfD discussions, it became clear to me that if a location was part of a larger location (e.g. a neighborhood), that a higher level of showing notability was required, so I now focus on places which are stand-alone populated places. I actually started this by helping out another editor (whose name I can't recall) who requested help on Pennsylvania articles. My intent is to put as much information into an article as I can. On the film articles, my intent is to drive all of them to at least "C" class – I'm about a third of the way through those articles. Some, like The Big Shot (1937 film) will probably never be more than start category. I simply can't find reliable info on them. Others, like Desert Desperadoes, I've done what I can via internet sourcing, and will go back to try to find hard copy references in which to flesh them out at some point. I've taken a break from those upgrades, because they can be quite tedious, looking at all the back issues of mags like The Film Daily, but will go back to it from time to time. Probably be finished in a year or two. Regarding my philosophy, not only is Wikipedia an encyclopedia, it's also a gazetteer, and has such, if a subject meets WP:GEOLAND, it should be included, even if it is only as a stub. Also, there are other editors who will create a stub of these types of locations and simply put a single line with the GNIS page as a reference, saying something like "XXXXX is an unincorporated community located in YYYYY county, Missouri". I'd much rather have a slightly more fleshed out stub, which includes an infobox and a map to help anyone looking into the subject.

Related to the previous point, there was some debate about these articles being included in the 50,000 challenge, leading you to simply withdraw them from the competition. Could you discuss that?

Sure, I was creating those types of articles prior to the establishment of the 50,000 challenge. Another editor asked me to participate, and as I was already creating the articles, I figured why not help out a fellow editor? Looking at the "rules" of the challenge, I began to include articles if they passed those "rules". Some editors took exception to those types of articles being included in the challenge, and the rules were modified. I wasn't notified of the discussion taking place, but a, shall we say "less than politic", announcement of the consensus which was reached during the discussion was placed on my talk page, stating that my articles were to be barred from being entered. No skin off my nose, as I said I was creating them prior to the challenge. So I removed them. And continued to create them.

Again, I just want to give you a chance to think about how to respond to these questions, as well as clarifying one or two things for me. Feel free to start drafting the answers to the standard questions on the other page in your own time; I'll work on a nomination statement there soon.

@MelanieN: might you be interested in co-nominating? Onel mentioned that you had been discussing adminship with him some time ago. Sam Walton (talk) 11:04, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - Do you want me to answer the above questions here? Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:24, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, yes! Sam Walton (talk) 16:28, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Great answers; I no longer have any minor concerns I previously had about those topics :) Would you mind me mentioning the answers here in my nomination statement? I haven't previously linked to these discussions, but it might help voters and reduce the chance that you'll have to write them out again. Solid answers to the standard questions too; I don't have any concerns. Sam Walton (talk) 17:11, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, no qualms about folks seeing them. I answered them here as I would have answered them on the RfA if asked. I've made mistakes, hopefully learned from them. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:38, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping, Sam! Yes, I would enthusiastically co-nominate Onel. I just reread through our correspondence on the subject; I see that I almost had him talked into it more than a year ago, and I'm glad if he is ready to go for it now. I'll take a fresh look and see if I find any new concerns or questions, but yes, I would be happy to co-nom. Keep me in the loop about timing etc. --MelanieN (talk) 18:54, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@MelanieN: Awesome! My nomination and Onel's standard answers are ready to go on the counterpart to this talk page, and we can start when you've written a co-nom and Onel5969 is happy get underway! Sam Walton (talk) 19:01, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Onel5969 and Samwalton9:

Done, and good luck! What an amazing array of highly qualified candidates we have had in the past few weeks! OneL, feel free to email me with any comments or concerns during the RfA process. --MelanieN (talk) 20:10, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Onel5969 and MelanieN: Awesome! I've started the nomination page at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Onel5969. Feel free to copy your statement and answers respectively when ready :) Sam Walton (talk) 20:15, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And by the way, thanks for waiting for me to get back from my vacation; it looks as if the two of you were ready to go several days ago. --MelanieN (talk) 20:16, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! Sam Walton (talk) 20:19, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- Thanks to both of you. MelanieN... hope your travels are going safely. Both of you are very kind in your words. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:43, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Onel5969: Great. Are you happy for me to transclude now? Sam Walton (talk) 20:51, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Taking deep breath) - Sure. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:52, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, I took a deep breath before I switched my RfA live, too. Schwede 66 21:17, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]