User talk:ScottyBerg/Archives/2010/June

Thanx for old pic

Thank you for finding File:Harvey Cable Car.jpg. Plenty of smart editors are writing the rail articles, and not quite so smart ones going around snapping our own pix relevant to the topic, but these old photos and other pictures add great value and fun to articles. Jim.henderson (talk) 15:51, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Why thank you! ScottyBerg (talk) 16:59, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Jerome Tiger

Hello! Your submission of Jerome Tiger at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Joe Chill (talk) 18:22, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Ugh. Right you are. I wasn't around to fix this. I told the author about the DYK, but I'm not sure he followed it. ScottyBerg (talk) 16:59, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Archive me

Hey Scotty!

You may want to set up archiving of this page. It is getting close to 32K which is the threshold size, because bigger than that it becomes hard to render and read for some users.

I use MiszaBot on my talk page to archive any discussion that's most recent time stamp is older than three months ago. You can check out the configuration of my talk page at the very top of it within the {{User:MiszaBot/config}} template. Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:20, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Good idea. I'll check it out. Thanks. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:21, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

DYK

Pls respond on my talk page — Rlevse • Talk • 20:04, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Jerome Tiger

Mifter (talk) 12:02, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Amtrak

I don’t see how removing all hints of taxpayer funding of Amtrak from the lead-in of the Amtrak article is a neutral point of view? On page 8 of the document located here: http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/BlobServer?blobcol=urldata&blobtable=MungoBlobs&blobkey=id&blobwhere=1249209905277&blobheader=application%2Fpdf&blobheadername1=Content-disposition&blobheadervalue1=attachment;filename=Amtrak_Final_29441WDC_NRPC_Amtrak_Single_Audit.pdf shows that amtrak is significantly funded by government subsidies. Epione218 (talk) 15:42, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Even without that sentence, I am disturbed by the POV of the lead section, especially its last sentence. I suggest we take this discussion to Talk:Amtrak. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:44, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change

An Arbitration request in which you are involved has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Workshop.

Additionally, please note that for this case specific procedural guidelines have been stipulated; if you have any questions please ask. The full outline is listed on the Evidence and Workshop pages, but please adhere to the basics:

• The issues raised in the "Sock Puppet Standards of Evidence" and "Stephen Schultz and Lar" requests may be raised and addressed in evidence in this case if (but only if) they have not been resolved by other means.
• Preparation of a formal list of "parties to the case" will not be required.
• Within five days from the opening of the case, participants are asked to provide a listing of the sub-issues that they believe should be addressed in the committee's decision. This should be done in a section of the Workshop page designated for that purpose. Each issue should be set forth as a one-sentence, neutrally worded question—for example:
  • "Should User:X be sanctioned for tendentious editing on Article:Y"?
  • "Has User:Foo made personal attacks on editors of Article:Z?"
  • "Did Administrator:Bar violate the ABC policy on (date)?"
  • "Should the current community probation on Global Warming articles by modified by (suggested change)?"

The committee will not be obliged to address all the identified sub-issues in its decision, but having the questions identified should help focus the evidence and workshop proposals.

• All evidence should be posted within 15 days from the opening of the case. The drafters will seek to move the case to arbitrator workshop proposals and/or a proposed decision within a reasonable time thereafter, bearing in mind the need for the committee to examine what will presumably be a very considerable body of evidence.
• Participants are urgently requested to keep their evidence and workshop proposals as concise as reasonably possible.
• The length limitation on evidence submissions is to be enforced in a flexible manner to maximize the value of each user's evidence to the arbitrators. Users who submit overlength diatribes or repetitious presentations will be asked by the clerks to pare them. On the other hand, the word limit should preferably not be enforced in a way that hampers the reader's ability to evaluate the evidence.
• All participants are expected to abide by the general guideline for Conduct on arbitration pages, which states:
• Incivility, personal attacks, and strident rhetoric should be avoided in Arbitration as in all other areas of Wikipedia.
• Until this case is decided, the existing community sanctions and procedures for Climate change and Global warming articles remain in full effect, and editors on these articles are expected to be on their best behavior.
• Any arbitrator, clerk, or other uninvolved administrator is authorized to block, page-ban, or otherwise appropriately sanction any participant in this case whose conduct on the case pages departs repeatedly or severely from appropriate standards of decorum. Except in truly egregious cases, a warning will first be given with a citation to this notice. (Hopefully, it will never be necessary to invoke this paragraph.)

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:37, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Yasser Al-Habib

The three versions are substantially different, although all have merited deletion; the first as an attack, the second as a copyvio and the last as a non-notable subject. That makes it inappropriate to protect, in my view. We can review the position if it re-appears. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 20:57, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: George Washington Carver Peanut Discoveries

Hello ScottyBerg, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I declined the speedy deletion of George Washington Carver Peanut Discoveries - a page you tagged - because: Does detail upon an aspect of the existing article. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. decltype (talk) 17:12, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

CSD articles without a category?

You said you're creating a list? Where is it? I started one a while ago, but gave up because ESSAY was immediately shot down (twice) at WT:CSD, even though I continue to see 100% snowballed essays deleted. I'd like to help if I could. (I am watching this page, so please reply here.) — Timneu22 · talk 19:10, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Here it is[1]. As you can see, I just started my compilation. I had previously noted many other examples, but can't incorporate them as they are deleted and no record remains. I'd love to know of more.

What is this "essay" category? ScottyBerg (talk) 19:16, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

My list is here: User:Timneu22/delete. Again, I stopped really tracking it, but I can tell you I've had dozens more, and nominated numerous AFDs in the past couple days. My beef with essays is that lots of people post essay articles (or worse, blatant "how-to"s) that have no CSD reason. The articles then go to AFD where they are usually 100% deletes, thus wasting people's time. Articles like how to post a Craig's list ad do not fall into CSD criteria. Even blatant essays like FDI-Based Innovation: A Priority for Arab Countries cannot be CSD'd. I don't think #1 on this list makes too much sense; if an article can't be something, then why do we allow the creation of those articles? The argument that I get is "something could be salvaged", but I consider this nonsense because G11 states articles that require fundamental rewrites to remove advertising can be deleted... why can't articles that require fundamental rewrites to remove all essay material be speedied as well? Maybe essays aren't clear cut, but "how-to"s certainly are; it REALLY stinks that we have no reason for those. Curious, why did you start creating a tracking list? — Timneu22 · talk 19:25, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I started this list because, like you, I was amazed at all the crud being placed on Wikipedia that didn't clearly fit into any CSD category. I agree with what you're saying here. I think that essays definitely should be speedied. Perhaps the answer is to draft a slightly broader CSD applicable to various situations? ScottyBerg (talk) 19:35, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

If you look at the current WT:CSD, you'll see my "A11" proposal for how-tos, and you'll see its denial. Essays are even harder to word, and those CSD people just won't have it. — Timneu22 · talk 20:10, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I missed that discussion, thanks. I just added my thoughts, hopefully not too belatedly. ScottyBerg (talk) 13:57, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

FYI, here's a completely insane article that has no CSD criteria. Horrible. — Timneu22 · talk 13:42, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that was a mess. There really needs to be more CSD categories. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:29, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

TPS here... CSD is specialized, you are looking for the WP:AFD and WP:MFD processes. Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:30, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I guess that depends on the egregiousness of the individual situation. By the way, what is TPS? ScottyBerg (talk) 21:43, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Ha, Ha, I knew I should have linked that to something! ;-) It's Talk Page Stalker. (But you probably already knew I have your talk page on my watchlist.) <grin> Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:55, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

@Acps... the problem is that CSD needs at least one (how-to articles) and probably two (blatant essays) more CSDs. These pop up all the time, go to AFD and get 100% "delete" votes. Why not just delete via CSD? — Timneu22 · talk 21:59, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I suppose for the few times that someone opposes. It's a more fluid process than just the discretion of the CSD-reviewing admin. It allows for a community discussion. Articles can be "saved from deletion" easier in the AFD process than the CSD one. Articles deleted by either must go through an additional layer to "get them back." In that sense CSD has zero window of opportunity to improve the article before it's deleted. One last thought, There's no deadline. Thanks, Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:09, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

(unindent) You've missed all the WT:CSD conversations on this topic. Why are some articles given a chance to be rewritten (blatant how-to) but not others (blatant adverts for companies who may otherwise be notable; that's just one example)? Frankly it's stupid. If something has no chance of being encylcopedic, like how to post a Craig's list ad, it should just be deleted. — Timneu22 · talk 22:38, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I personally lean toward faster deletion, because it seems to me that articles that are hopeless, that have no chance of being encyclopedic, really need to go. But I realize there are two schools of thought on this. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:00, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Climate change moving to Workshop

This Arbitration case is now moving into the Workshop phase. Please read Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration#Workshop to understand the process. Editors should avoid adding to their evidence sections outside of slight tweaks to aid in understanding; large-scale additions should not be made. Many proposals have already been made and there has already been extensive discussion on them, so please keep the Arbitrators' procedures in mind, namely to keep "workshop proposals as concise as reasonably possible." Workshop proposals should be relevant and based on already provided evidence; evidence masquerading as proposals will likely be ignored. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:38, 28 June 2010 (UTC)