User talk:TonyBallioni/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

File:New page review chart.png

Take another close look at this chart - even click on it to see it larger. I know I recently had serious surgery to both of my eyes, but I seem to see very clearly that there is in fact a HUGE number of unreviewed pages created by new users. Do please tell me if I'm wrong before I comment on it elsewhere and make a fool of myself. On the surface however, it seems as if the WMF doesn't know how to read their own graph. I'm also curious as to why they didn't include the rest of the story in that graph. The more and more I read that report it looks as if the WMF is again attempting to tell the volunteers they are all wrong and only the Foundation employees are right. Nothing new, but let's just hope that this time round something will really move forward, and let's not let up on the pressure. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:48, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

I think the point that they are trying to make is that compared to the pages made by ACed users that are in the backlog, non-ACed users are small. It is about 75 pages by new users in the backlog for the first two days of the graph, and shrinking after that, going back to around late March/early April. The pages created by new users are significant, but they are also significantly less than the amount created by autoconfirmed users. A more interesting question would be where the 7% number came from. Is that the total percentage of pages in the backlog by new users? If so, I think its a very misleading statistic. The number amount of blue in the first column looks significantly more than 7% to me. That number is what we would be shrinking the backlog per day with ACTRIAL, not the total percentage of the entire backlog, where the new user pages end 4.5 months earlier than the autoconfirmed.

Like you, my first reaction was "where are the deletion numbers"? These numbers are vital to going forward with the conversation and without them the graph doesn't really tell us much. As an exercise, it might be worth looking at the end of the new user backlog with all three boxes checked for deletion tagged, reviewed, and unreviewed. I only counted three that had a green check mark. It seemed the majority were trash cans, and the rest were unreviewed. I think this is pretty telling for what happens when pages hit the end of the new user backlog, and why the deletion numbers are so vital. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:23, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Have another look at their report and then read my post again. The WMF is desperately scared that ACTRIAL would affect the raw number of new articles because they use this number to claim growth and donations. The other thing (I know this because I have spoken to them in RL) is that they haven't got a clue what it looks like at the New Pages Feeds - not one of them has ever done a 2 hour stint at patrolling to find out for themselves. Horn has refused point blank to prioritise these issues until suddenly just now with all the sweet blurb about 'really wanting to help'. THe truth is, they wished their predecessors hadn't created Page Curation in the first place. THe next thing is, if you try to nail them down at a conference, they hop from one foot to the other, won't look you in the eyes, and pretend they have to rush away to someplace else. On line, it's even easier to procrastinate. Nothing will get done this side of Christmas and by then the horn of plenty will be fully tied up with the new letter to Santa. This sudden burst of interest (change of heart?) may have something to do with the sudden disappearance of Wes Moran from the top level satff list and in the recent Skype conference it was clear who was calling the shots and it wasn't Ryan. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:07, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

I think we are largely of the same general mindset on the report. I'm probably a bit more optimistic that something can come of the conversations, but I also haven't been dealing with it for the last siz years like you have. The other issue with the graph as has been pointed out on the talk page, is that it shows people who are autoconfirmed today not people who are autoconfirmed at the tie of creation. They say they are fixing it, so I think that will also shed a different picture.

On another note, while the foundation seems against ACTRIAL, I don't see the report actually changing that many people's minds on the talk page, and I think the community as a whole would likely still support if the case were laid out. You also might be interested in this thread at AN which shows that the broader community is noticing. Also, I think I linked above somewhere to where two very experienced users at the village pump seemed to be under the impression that page creation was already restricted to AC. I want to see what WMF will come back with in response to the questions raised (especially deletion), but at the end of the day, the community as a whole is going to have to have a conversation about these issues. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:13, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't think much is ever going to come of the dialogue the WMF has started. More and more it looks as if every good faith suggestion by volunteers is receiving counter arguments by the WMF who are now saying that the problems are of our own making. It reinforces my view that the whole movement is based on some kind of serfdom. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:11, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

The things that I am most looking for from WMF are better numbers (deletion and by AC status at the time of page creation) and as you have been hitting on recently technical assistance to implement what the community needs. I'm not sure what will come from asking them from that, but I think it worth the conversation. At the same time, the future of the new pages process is going to have to be community driven and we need to take steps to move the conversation forward beyond just responses to the report. I do think that the report, ignoring the horrible idea of getting rid of the backlog by pretending it doesn't exist, did at least shift the conversation to a moving forward direction. Its now up to the community to act on this. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:37, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

@Kudpung, Chris troutman, Timothyjosephwood, and DGG: since you all have commented on this and are aware of the background you might be interested in reviewing T149021. Something not put in the report but that was mentioned in the task was that the backlog was growing by the approximate amount of number of creations by new editors. The idea it would help shrink the backlog was questioned for several reasons, but it is mentioned in phab and not the analysis. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:56, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

I just read the whole of T149021 (yes, I do that kid of thing). It seems their major intention is to hide the backlog altogether and pretend it doesn't exist. The Phab case was created in Oct 2016 by Quiddity/Nick Wilson, perhaps (wishful thinking?) as a result of my discussion with him in Italy several months previously. The amazing thing is that 7 moths (seven months) later the WMF has been unable to even come up with a way of providing the stats. All that said, the WMF is clearly very worried about what the en.Wiki may do, as demonstrated by Kaldari's use of the word 'threat'. I'm not sure though exactly what the basis is for the foundations fear; is it really anything to do with an imagined 'founding principle'? or is it merely that they risk losing face once again? Actually, probably a mix of both. It proves again also that employee junkets to Korea for a minority Wiki are more of a priority than giving us the tools we need to maintain their insistence that the volunteers work even harder to help Wikipedia gain a reputation for being a reliable knowledge base in face of all the public criticism about it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:44, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

• I don't have time right now to read through, and from the looks of it I may not understand much of it if I did, but... does anyone else get the feeling the Kudpung is the WP version of The Most Interesting Man in the World™? I don't always discuss improvements to NPP, but when I do, I do it on the French riviera with a glass of chardonnay from Mussolini's personal collection, gathered after the war. TimothyJosephWood 01:18, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

With Dos Equis afterwards of course. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:52, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

The absence of stats really concerns me: the WMF is very good at measuring everything except the really critical information, like how many article are accepted and improved, or accepted and still there a yea later. They are basic trying to capture snapshots at intervals, but we need to know what happens to articles. (I fully understand this is considerably more difficult).

In terms of developing features, they follow the pre-existing tradition by which programers add everything they can think of, even if the special cases will never be used--most templates have many parameters nobody knows about. The earlier WP development was very clever at using basically simple programs to ingeniously do things much more complicated than they were really meant to for--which I understand well, for in my own amateur efforts of programming I do similarly. But whether it is developed centrally or by volunteers, it is not really possible to tell in advance the acceptability of a function at WP. I know the methods of testing--I could not probably do better. But no prediction based on any evidence shows what the reaction will be from the actual community, most of whom will never speak up until the encounter something they do not like, or that interferes with their sometimes bad habits. (As an example, though I understand the value of the citation templates, I do not use them. It is much simpler and faster to type in the necessary information freehand, or copy it from somewhere. To the extent I owuld be forced to use them, I'd add fewer references. (And ,of course, being idiosyncratic like everyone else, I strongly disagree with some of their features, such as highlighting article titles , because they tend to be highly promotional.) This of course is an area where there will never be consensus, as well demonstrated by the successive editions of the MLA handbook. But I do notice that almost nobody uses the specialized templates--most beginners simply use cite web for everything, because they found it on the web, which is all they know about.

The problem with centralized development is the difficult of responding to errors and to actual usage. We can and sometimes have insisted on the removal of a system, but we cannot insist in any practical way on changes. If we do it ourselves, it develops. I do not blame the WMF. At least the current group of people there are doing the best they can to help WP; but WPedians do not want other people to help them unless they themselves want the help, and then they only want what the each of them individually think desirable. Centralized anything is antithetical to the spirit of WP--and not to something as vague as "spirit" but in more operational terms the manner of thinking and working of the sort of people who are attracted to work here.

And, as Kudpung points out, there's a fundamental contradiction in what the WMF is trying to accomplish--and not just the WMF, but WPedians generally. We are all trying simultaneously to increase participation,and improve quality. This can not be directly accomplished. We can and do try to increase participation in the most likely groups to do high quality work, but with rare individual exceptions, people from these groups are quite uncomfortable here, as they do not like their expertise being challenged. (It only works within self contained units who mange to exclude everyone else from participation except those with their own background and standards, such as Milhis and Medicine--or on a much smaller scale, the 3 or 4 of us who care about academic journals). We cannot be simultaneously a culture of editors/proof readers/critics in the classical sense, and writers. The people who prefer each role will always be in conflict. It is not possible to eliminate conflict and dissatisfaction her--it's part of the environment. The only people who will be truly successful are those so self-confident they do not care whether what they do will be accepted, and so competent that what they do will be accepted. What we get is mostly competent writers who care very much about the degree what they do is liked in every detail, and self confident people confident about often the wrong things entirely. I remain a populist in the classical sense--if we get more people interested fro ma a wide variety of backgrounds and itnerest, thingswil lwork out despite the friction. DGG ( talk ) 02:23, 6 June 2017 (UTC) ß

Pope Benedict XVI

Re this revert - I'm not looking to get into an edit war, but I do feel pretty strongly that the change I've made more than once is correct. Here's why: the wikilink refers to the specific conclave, and therefore the article the belongs with the wikilink. If the link were to papal conclave, a generic term, then placing the article the outside the link would be correct. When a user clicks a wikilink for papal conclave, they expect to find out what a papal conclave is. When they click a link that goes to the one that elected a particular pope (which is what existed in the article before I made the edit), it should be identified as such by including the definite article in the link. Similar recent examples would be the re-election of Hassan Rouhani, which was an example of an election in Iran or the election of Emmanual Macron in their recent presidential election.  Frank  |  talk  14:56, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Frank, thanks for the message. I don't really care that strongly about MOS things, but I only noticed the change because I do work on conclaves (early modern, though). In the two examples you give, neither of the ledes use the definite article in a Wikilink, and Hassan Rouhani actually uses the style the I reverted to for his first election. I just edited the lede to match the style that is used in the Macron lede, which specifies the year in the Wikilink. I think that is better for a few reasons. Let me know what you think. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:04, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

NPOV

Hi, I'm asking you specifically as an uninvolved editor who seems to have their head screwed on to take a look at Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Pentecost. Each year Pentecost goes on the main page when it is celebrated (this year within 24 hours) and I am concerned about a spate of recent edits. I may be over-reacting. I just want outside opinions. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 00:23, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Andreas Philopater, I'm currently on vacation but will try to look at it in the morning. Is there anything in particular you have concern over? TonyBallioni (talk) 00:31, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. In brief, I take the issue to be good-faith over-reliance on a dubious source, but the editor in question is persistent and we've been going round in circles. I would have just left it over the weekend if it wasn't that the article was likely to be on the main page on Sunday. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 00:41, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

A question regarding move requests

Hi.
I have done a move request here, and I was just wondering, is it possible to reconsider the requested title while in the middle of discussion?
Or is it possible for a move request/discussion to end up with a third title (not the current and not the requested)?
Thank you.
—Rye-96 (talk) 00:36, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Rye-96, RMs can conclude with a move different than the original suggestion. If you have a title you think people might be more able to get behind, you can suggest it and ping the other participants in the RM. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:28, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, TonyBallioni.
—Rye-96 (talk) 11:10, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Battle royale

Hello, you closed the move proposal at Battle royal (gaming). This seems to have been based on unsubstantiated claims from non-authoritative sources (including professional wrestling articles) about the correctness or preference of spelling, and not on the policy of WP:COMMONNAME. The current modification to the article's lead, which claims that it is "sometimes" spelled as "royale", is a patent falsehood, as every source discussing the subject has spelled it as "royale". Can you please revert your move and reopen a discussion? Ham Pastrami (talk) 12:28, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Ham Pastrami, thanks for reaching out. I'm sorry I didn't include a closing statement, because it did not seem like a controversial close at the time. I've re-reviewed the discussion and came to the same result. There was agreement that battle royal was the standard English spelling with battle royale as an alternate, supported by sourcing to Merriam-Webster's. The common name argument was brought up by two individuals, and you were the only one who opposed based on it. It was pointed out by at least one supporter that common usage didn't lean one way or another based on search hits, and this was also noted via numbers by the commenter who didn't !vote. The argument beyond COMMONNAME was WP:CONSISTENCY with Battle royal, which is currently the generic title for this name. After reviewing the RM again, I stand by my close.

You are of course free to request a move review, or if you feel that you have additional evidence and sourcing that was not addressed in the initial RM, you could open a new one. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:26, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Move review for Battle royal (gaming)

An editor has asked for a Move review of Battle royal (gaming). Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. Ham Pastrami (talk) 14:04, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Noted. I've left a response at the move review. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:02, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Propose for article for deletion

Hi Tony, kindly advice what are the tags for "propose article for deletion with notability and unsourced/cite". I am helping up on maintenance tasks here. Thanks in advance.CASSIOPEIA (talk) 05:36, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

CASSIOPEIA I'd recommend getting more used to the encyclopedia before getting involved with deletion policy. You have less than 100 edits, so getting more experience would help you understand these better. To answer your question: to propose something other than an unsourced living person for deletion you would use PROD or AfD. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:53, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

For future reference

I see that you removed a DOB from Josiah Lee Hall and said you were doing it per WP:DOB. The last sentence of that section says: "f you see personal information such as phone numbers, addresses, account numbers, etc. in a BLP or anywhere on Wikipedia, edit the page to remove it and contact the oversight team so that they can evaluate it and possibly remove it from the page history." It is just luck that I was patrolling the speedy deletion category and found it so It got suppressed not just deleted. In the future if you see information like that please contact the oversight team using one of the methods at Wikipedia:Oversight. ~ GB fan 11:45, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

GB fan, thanks. Oversight is normally the first place I go anytime I see personally indentifiable information. I'd been told in the past that DOB was a grey area in terms of suppression, but for minors it makes sense to always report. Would you suggest also requesting suppression for adults? Finding pages with full DOB is relatively common with new pages, so it'd be useful to get your opinion. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:11, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

This one for the record, was a minor. Adults are a grey area. As an oversighter, here is how I would evaluate it. If it is sourced to a reliable source, I would not suppress it. If it isn't sourced to a reliable source, I would suppress it. ~ GB fan 12:21, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Got it. My practice will be to report all unsourced DOBs in the future. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:29, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank You

Dear Tony, Thank you for your help with the policy on copyright. I actually was still working on that page that you nominated for speedy deletion. If you would have noticed it was still raw data. There were no categories added yet. I had just taken material from the site and cited so that it doesnt get deleted. Atleast you should have waited for 24-48 hours to see if there are any changes on the page or not. Anyways I am going to create the page again today. Please help in improving the articles. Regards. Jeromeenriquez 13:55, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Jeromeenriquez, first, thank you for your work trying to improve coverage of the Catholic Church in India. Both coverage of South Asia and Catholic-related topics are things that I care about, so it is always nice to see someone doing both. In terms of the deletion, the content you posted to James Thoppil was a copy and paste copyright violation. While you may have inteneded to rewrite it in your own words, deletion of the revisions where the copyrighted text was present would have been necessary as was required to the text you added at Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Imphal. Wikipedia represents to the public that all text in all of its revisions, historical and current, can be used freely under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 license and the GFDL. When they are not, our policy allows for the swift removal and deletion of the infringing material. Since James Thoppil had no non-infringing versions, the page as a whole was deleted. Hope this makes sense. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:07, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Dear Tony, Thank you for the reply and explanation. Thank you for appreciating my work. I will make sure that i make good articles and do not make the same mistake done in this article. I would require your guidance and help in improving my articles in future. Thank you very much. Can i create the page again? :Jeromeenriquez

@Jeromeenriquez: Catholic bishops generally speaking meet our criteria for inclusion for biographies, so there would be nothing preventing you from recreating a page about Thoppil. You must, however, use your own words and be sure not to simply make superficial changes to the text. If the article you create contains text that is copied from copyrighted sources, it will be quickly removed, and if the page contains so much copyrighted text that there would not be an article left over after the infringing text is removed, the article would be deleted again. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:56, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Dear Tony, please help with the article Leo Cornelio. I did write the article in my words, just picked information from the website. Please help in fixing it.ThanksJeromeenriquez (talk) 18:09, 9 June 2017 (UTC)‎

Jeromeenriquez, you changed some words but enough of them were similar and in the same pattern that they constituted a copyright violation. The same happened on Dominic Lumon. You can learn more about close paraphrasing and how it can violate copyright at Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. This resource from Purdue is also helpful. This training is targeted at students who are using Wikipedia and could also help you. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:18, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Papal conclave, March 1605

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Papal conclave, March 1605 you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Seraphim System -- Seraphim System (talk) 22:02, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

How Exactly i Can get guideline of wikipedia text when submit any page ?

hello TonyBallioni i want to know guideline of Wiki Text How to write can you Suggest me ?

1. Which Type of post Should i post?
2. Once Page is Redirected through wikipedia what i need to do ?
3. How to Make a proper Text Page on Wikipedia?
4. I have Created page is it according guideline or not please let me know? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ayushjain772 (talk • contribs) 19:09, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi Ayushjain772, I'm assuming this is in reference to the school article that was recently full protected by Dlohcierekim. As he has pointed out numerous times, the discussion ended in delete and redirect. Unless you can provide sourcing to show that the concerns at the deletion discussion have been addressed, he is unlikely to lift the protection. You are free to request it be lifted at WP:RFPP, but that is unlikely to be granted by another administrator without sourcing either. If this is about another issue, please let me know, and I'll try to respond. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:47, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Papal conclave, March 1605

The article Papal conclave, March 1605 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Papal conclave, March 1605 for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Seraphim System -- Seraphim System (talk) 19:42, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Jenny Darren

Hi Tony. I was not aware i had published the article on the mainspace. I was indeed going to put in citations and references as well as revise the language and content to bring it up to publishable standards. I have since figured out the how the sandbox works properly and have recreated the page to edit in my userspace. I'm happy for the public version of the page to be deleted, provided it does not inhibit me from creating another one when the article is properly finished. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wilcopshot (talk • contribs) 00:06, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Wilcopshot, I've tagged it with speedy deletion criterion G7 (author request). This will allow you to publish it in the mainspace once you have completed it in your sandbox. Note that while requesting deletion now does not prevent you from recreating it in the future, the version you work on will be reviewed again to make sure it meets our standards for inclusion. If you have any questions, please feel free to reach out to me. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:14, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Michail Vasiljevich Klokov

Hi Tony, Klokov is botanist with a lot of taxa named under him for example Capsella orientalis and several species that didn't have entry in wikipedia yet but already available in wikispecies. I understand that I might not put more information on it. I will try to collect more info anyway. Plantdrew has removed the tags, I guess. Adeuss (talk) 07:36, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

@Adeuss and Plantdrew: thanks to both of you for working on this. When I first came across the article it simply listed his name, profession, and life span, and I couldn't find anything when checking it out. Very glad that the article was updated to get it out of A7 territory. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:53, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Copyrighf in draft

Sorry Tony,

I intended to modified it on the base of what I have already written (I send it to the source that has it published on the euromoney website) to be perfectly in line with the wikipedia policies on copyright.

But probably is better if I do it somewhere else and only at the end try again to have the page online.

Best,

F — Preceding unsigned comment added by FrankieFem (talk • contribs) 10:33, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Not a problem. Rewriting content outside of Wikipedia is the way to go. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:26, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Papal conclave, May 1605

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Papal conclave, May 1605 you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jzsj -- Jzsj (talk) 15:02, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Papal conclave, May 1605

The article Papal conclave, May 1605 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Papal conclave, May 1605 for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jzsj -- Jzsj (talk) 15:22, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of Wilderness Seaplanes

Hello Tony, As I'm sure you noticed I am new to Wikipedia. My intention here is to update some outdated information on our company and partner company Pacific Coastal Airlines, as well to create an article highlighting the operation of our historic aircraft. The Wilderness Seaplanes article is no way intended to be advertising, only as a reference for those wanting to know more about the single commercial operator left in the world of the Grumman Goose. This is of importance to many aviation experts. The article is no different than other small seaplane companies such as Harbour air, Tofino Air etc. Please allow me more time to continue drafting it and make it a credible article of interest to the encyclopedia. thank you --Avittery (talk) 18:11, 14 June 2017 (UTC)avittery

Hi Avittery, the article was deleted because it did not adequetely explain why it is significant, which is Wikipedia-talk for it didn't give a reason you would expect to find it in an encyclopedia. Just because other companies like this have articles, doesn't mean that yours should. I would recommend you reading WP:COI for how to deal with creating an article about something you are related to. Jimfbleak was the admin who deleted the article, and if you want it undeleted, he would be your first point of contact. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:56, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Charter Oak schools

Hi Tony, So I'm assuming from your comments that you do not list individual elementary schools or middle schools. Is that correct? Eregus (talk) 21:33, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi Eregus, generally speaking we do not have articles on the English Wikipedia about elementary or middle schools unless they somehow have received significant coverage. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:51, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Patrollers

Check this talk page out for CSD-declined messages. I have placed my boilerplate on literally hundreds of users. This was one of the reasons for creating the NPR right, but where the community flatly refused to allow us restrict new page tagging to experienced users only. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:38, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Kudpung, I'm aware. I was debating taking it to ANI the next time it happened. Draft:Tallinn Central Library was tagged by that user 1 minute after creation. It was in piss poor shape then, but a quick Google search showed that as the first public library in a country, it would likely be notable. Hopefully I can get it in shape for a DYK. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:43, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

We have some incremental user warnings I made at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Coordination#UW reviewer, but of course nobody much is interested in using them. They were supposed to be incorporated in he Page Curation control panel. I use them when my first boilerplate fails to work. I've always been very reluctant to drag inexperienced patrollers to ANI, unless of course their disruption becomes almost borderline vandalism. To do so now would also feed the blatant lies the WMF is telling on their proposal. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:54, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

I was unaware of those. Thanks for pointing them out. Very good point on the ANI. My concern is generally that it is ridiculous CSD tagging and other such things that make the NPP project look bad in the eyes of the larger community. Hopefully your message to that user will move them towards other work for a bit. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:02, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

What we should have done (my fault we didn't) when we were debating the creation of the New Page Reviewer Right, was to suggest disabling the CSD, and PROD tags in Twinkle for non rights holders. It would have made sense, ensured that no pages are wrongly tagged for deletion and avoided new users from being bitten. It would have been technically very easy to implement (most things in Twinkle are). However, as Rob knows only too well, there was so much kicking and yelling about Twinkle on those RfCs that to even mention it would probably have caused the loss of the consensus. In retrospect however, it's something that could now be clearly (and cleanly) argued for, but my name would be mud if I were to launch the RfC for it - the community was getting fed up with me running the NPP circus for years (or so I felt) and that's why I gave up doing anything concrete for it. All I do now is kick and yell (very mildly, however) to the point of receiving emails from the WMF telling me my participation on the topic is not appreciated. Go figure... Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:42, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Was that actually an email you received? If so, I strongly recommend it be made public. Whatever my thoughts on the matter (and I was and still am strongly opposed to the Twinkle business), it's wholly inappropriate for the WMF to try to dissuade an editor from participating in any given topic. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 03:10, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Oh, yes, Rob, the email was real enough. I don't make things like that up (or anything else) - remember there is a large number of prominent Wikipedians who know me personally and I glad to say we consider ourselves as friends although we are a very mixed bag. There must be a reason why we all find ourselves round the same tables in restaurants and leaning over the same bar tops all over the world. I've discussed the email already with a member of Arbcom, but at the moment it's probably best to just do nothing and I'm not going to commit an indiscretion and make it public - we might actually need the Foundation to do some programming. Suffice it to say that if we were a corporation, some heads would be rolling. BTW, what happened to C-Level Wes Moran? Everyone is being schtum on that too. I had a very disturbing Skype conference with him a few weeks ago. If you do want something to read though, you might like this. It will sound familiar in parts and it's got stats that will make some people squirm with unease - there's a lot I haven't published elsewhere - yet. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:22, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

I have been following T166269 but I've been waiting to see what happens before commentig as I have just now. If I were to see those stats in graphic form such as at User:Scottywong/Article_creation_stats, I think they would be fairly similar. I applaud MusikAnimal / MusikAnimal (WMF) for coming up with what he has though, and it becomes increasingly clear why the Foundation didn't want us to have them. Kind of scores another few points for the essay I wrote last week. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:04, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't know anything about this email, which is none of my business, but I can assure you WMF had no intention to hide statistics from the community. The database is public for anyone to do analysis. Here however computing the requested data is a tedious process and we want to make sure we give accurate numbers. Thanks for your patience! MusikAnimal (WMF) (talk) 17:23, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

MusikAnimal (WMF), as I said in phab, thank you for this. I'm too busy now to look too much at the update you just posted there right now, but I also think that what you just pulled is useful in addition to the 90 day request because it shows what happens after everything has left NPP. I did some basic pie charts in a spread myself last night. I haven't uploaded them because I wanted to wait for the final picture, but they could help with visualization of the data you have pulled. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:32, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

@Kudpung and MusikAnimal (WMF): I've done a basic graph of the info that was published last night . TonyBallioni (talk) 02:26, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

The data may be public for anyone who knows how to extract it - and even those at the WMF who are paid to are having a hard time of it. I've appealed without success to get them to make the same kind of graphs Scottywong did six years ago without a murmur, but the WMF is scared of the results because they will reinforce once again that ACTRIAL is the only answer. In any case, the bar chart already does it - the number of deletions is conclusive enough to roll out ACTRIAL without taking a second breath. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:43, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Also, here are pie charts: new users and autoconfirmed users. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:57, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

That's good. Nobody can dispute that. Except of course Horn will insist that it only appleis to the day the stats were drawn from. I think it's absolutely more than sufficiently conclusive to implement ACTRIAL. I don't see any other solutions, and goodness knows I've tried hard enough even to the point of being told by email from the WMF to shuddup, and insulted by them again here. The key is DGG's long and accurate comment which I have reproduced at the end of User:Kudpung/NPP#Conclusion - we are not a bunch of errant schoolchildren. If somebody can Skype me and walk me in real time through the process of installing one of the suggested scripts that will implement ACTRIAL, I'll put my name to it. Nach mir die Sintflut. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:31, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

I think the statistics MusikAnimal drew provide a snapshot that actually might be better than what I originally asked for because they are outside of the backlog. I still want to see the 90 day numbers, but I doubt they will be much different. Both the raw numbers and percentages are a great argument for ACTRIAL: if you're talking about ~1000-2000 pages a week that would otherwise be deleted, thats massive and will save time regardless of whether there is a 1:1 review tradeoff. 80% being unacceptable for a live article is also massive. I think you know that I disagree with you about not needing an RfC to pull the trigger on ACTRIAL, but I certainly see why you would want to do it yourself. I also lack the technical skills to implement so would need someone else to assist if an RfC affirmed the 2011 consensus, or if it was determined that we could pull the trigger now (which I know a lot of people at ]]WP:NPPAFC]] wanted to do in the fall of 2016.) TonyBallioni (talk) 13:23, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

MusikAnimal is only doing what he has been told to do by his superiors. He won't provide a larger sample unless they ask him to and for obvious reasons they won't. I'm getting really upset now at the interference that's coming from the Foundation (Wikipedia talk:Page Curation/Suggested improvements#Refactoring restored). I'll find someone to walk me through one of the scripts for ACTRIAL - it's time for a kneejerk. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:01, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

@Kudpung: No, I collected this data on my own accord, though my superiors are in support of it. I did not refactor the suggested improvements in a WMF capacity, I wanted to help implement the easy requests and that page was really difficult to go through so I tried to clean it up. This is all me. Please stop making insane assumptions that there is some secret WMF agenda. Myself as a volunteer, employee, and the WMF as a whole want to help. Same team. Please, please, understand that. I have a larger sample of data I'll be able to share today, and I even have plans to get historical data – several years – and continue to get data and offer it to you in real time. I'm doing this for fun but my superiors are letting me do it during business hours. I will provide this data, but just know you're really taking away the fun out of it, not as an employee, but as a believer in the Wikimedia movement. I don't know how you get off being so rude to people who are trying to help. I am human. I have feelings — MusikAnimal ^talk 18:14, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

MusikAnimal, I could say the same - especially the insults that are being emailed to me by your paid coleagues. 'You' are taking the fun out of volunteering here, as I already stated, and the WMF is determined to loose us some users. I don't own the NPP/NPR project, but I built it up and fostered it for years, I'm not going to let you or your colleagues dismantle all that unpaid work without responding. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:21, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

@Kudpung: FWIW, Quiddity and I have been trying to get better stats since October (T150369, T149021). Unfortunately, I'm not an Analyst so all I can do is keep poking other people to help. I even created a research project proposal at meta:Research:Wikipedia article creation II, but it's not something I can do on my own. Believe it or not, I'm just as frustrated as you are about our lack of data and I'm continuing to push people to work on it. The resources at the WMF are stretched thin, however, so it's a slow process. I'm not saying we're doing a good job, I'm just saying we're still working on it and we're not trying to hide anything. Kaldari (talk) 18:59, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Also, if any WMF employees are insulting you, please let me know. That is definitely not OK. Kaldari (talk) 19:03, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

It came from a senior level, Ryan. I have discussed it with Arbcom. It's not right that the Foundation should treat us volunteers as their (unpaid) workforce, but for the moment we are prepared to let it go - relations are already sufficiently strained as I'm sure you appreciate. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:17, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

When Will I Be Unblocked

Dear Tony, the moment i asked you to help, i got blocked. when will i be unblocked. please help. i have started writing on my own. i will make sure that whatever i write doesnt match the content on the websites. thanks. Jeromeenriquez (talk) 12:15, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Jeromeenriquez, you are not currently blocked, otherwise you wouldn't have been able to post on my talk page. Regarding copyright, just always make sure you write things in your own words. Summarize what the source says rather than paraphrasing it, and you should be fine. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:17, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Tony, i m not able to write a new article, thats why i asked. Jeromeenriquez (talk) 14:10, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Jeromeenriquez, what is the exact title of the article you are trying to create? ~ GB fan 14:14, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Prakash Mallavarapu Jeromeenriquez (talk) 14:24, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Jeromeenriquez, you should be able to create Prakash Mallavarapu. What is the wording of the message you get when you try to create it? Is there a difference between that and Mallavarapu Prakash? ~ GB fan 14:40, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Ken Krawchuk

Hi Tony, I'm not getting paid by any political party and haven't received any payments from any political parties or candidates except from a candidate in the PC Party of Ontario. I'm actually from Canada and heard about Ken Krawchuk on a facebook group, saw his videos and agreed with a lot of the stuff that he said and googled the Pennsylvania election page to see if there was anything on him and when I didn't see him mentioned, I've made a page for him. I've also contacted someone involved in the campaign to ask questions about him, but I don't have any personal or paid connections to anyone involved in the campaign.

I might be working on a canvassing database service, but that would be open-source and would be able to use by anyone, and may contact smaller campaigns like Krawchuks's about subscribing to that service if it is completed, which will be priced lower than alternatives. However, it would be open to all political candidates of all political parties. I'm not even sure whether I'd be able to do that or not, so right now there is no expectation of payment.

The information on the page should be unbiased though - it's just basic biographical facts. Only issue I see is that it's only source is Krawchuk's website, so I could try adding some more information from other sources.

Swil999 (talk) 16:26, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Swil999, I've moved your comment to the bottom of my talk page (that's where new comments go.) You also don't need to add the help banner when posting here directly. Thanks for the response re: paid advocacy. I only asked because you posted a lot of things about the possibility of winning and discrimination against third-party candidates at the AfD, which is something you might expect from a staffer. No harm no foul, just wanted to check. I still think the page should either be deleted or redirected to the main gubernatorial race page, but your input at the discussion is welcome and other editors will have a chance to look it over. Thanks again for responding. All the best, TonyBallioni (talk) 16:32, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

I was curious as to what the political scenes are in PA and what the guy's chances are, so I just did a bit of research on the polling there and the 1/7th of the vote was said in one of his interviews. I like the guy though. If I lived in PA, I'd probably be voting for him. Swil999 (talk) 16:42, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Also learned about "finacial penalties" on Krawchuk's facebook video and googled it to search what it was: https://www.facebook.com/KenK4Pa/, this is the video https://www.facebook.com/askalibertarian/videos/1860433584195089/?hc_ref=PAGES_TIMELINE — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swil999 (talk • contribs) 16:51, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Law & Order: True Crime

Hi. May I ask why you just moved Law & Order True Crime: The Menendez Murders to Law & Order: True Crime, even though the consensus on the talk page seems to be that it should be moved to Law & Order True Crime? Bennv3771 (talk) 04:25, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Bennv3771, because it is late and I made a copy-paste mistake and forgot to remove the colon when entering it into the page swap script. It should be fixed now. Thanks for pointing that out. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:29, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for moving it again. Bennv3771 (talk) 04:29, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

ANI

Hey, TonyBallioni. I am not edit warring, but maybe you could help me. The entry I restored at ANI was deleted "for being a sock", but the IP address is not blocked nor was it tied to the sock investigation linked by the most recent deletor. Could you look into that? Newimpartial (talk) 14:56, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, Newimpartial, you were edit warring. Reverting twice when two different editors have done the same edit is not a violation of 3RR, but it is edit warring behavior, especially on the most watched page on en.wiki. I wasn't following the thread, but I wanted to warn you before you crossed the bright line. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:01, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Don't worry, I wouldn't go there. The matter is that these editors both deleted that post claiming that the account posting it was blocked, which it wasn't at the time. But now it is, so it's all good. Clearly I misread the situation. Newimpartial (talk) 15:04, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

FWIW, I hold myself to 1RR and then discuss with an editor after that. It's a good practice, especially for high visiability, high drama places like ANI. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:14, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Unreviewed Articles

Dear TonyBallioni, can you please review some of my articles which are still unreviewed and it has been very long that they are still pending. And please check if i deserve any 'Barn Star'. Thanks. Jeromeenriquez (talk) 17:02, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Jeromeenriquez, I just reviewed three archbishops. They're all pretty basic stubs, and the sourcing could be improved by getting better sources (Google Books and/or Google News could help.) I didn't see any copyright violations and they meet our inclusion criteria, though. Also, as an FYI, Wikipedia does not reference itself. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:16, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Glass escalator marked for deletion

Tony, could you explain to me further why you marked my article for deletion? Each section has credible scholarly sources and the topic had been well researched. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sls269 (talk • contribs) 01:49, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Sls269, the notability was part of it, the other reason was that it was written like an essay or academic paper, which Wikipedia does not publish. Due to your query, I've removed the tag and replaced it with a neutrality tag for now. I'll review it more thoroughly later, but it also could be a candidate for merging into Glass ceiling, which already contains a section on this. It might make the most sense for you to add content there, and have the page you created redirect to that page. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:04, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi Tony, I think redirecting my page was not the best action to take. My page provided credible information on the topic of the glass escalator. It is concept in sociology that deserves its own page for others to read. Only giving it a subsection another similar but different sociological concept does not do it justice and leaves out much necessary information. Sls269 (talk) 19:18, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Sls269, I've restored the content and opened a merger discussion on Talk:Glass ceiling. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:34, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Globitex

TonyBallioni, just deleting my page does not solve the issue. Please edit the page, if you like, but not delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Licere (talk • contribs) 17:06, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi Licere, the page reads as an advertisement and doesn't explain why it should be in Wikipedia, a general purpose encyclopedia. You are free to contest the issue on the talk page of the article, but please do not remove the speedy deletion tag. Thanks, TonyBallioni (talk) 17:11, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't know if...

Hello! I don't know if this comment was a intended to be a reply to BMK or not. I think you was trying to reply User Zfish118.

I offer my apologies if I were not understanding you. English is not my mother language so I might have difficulties. --Grabado (talk) 06:07, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Grabado, it was meant as a point on its own, which is why I didn't reply directly to anyone. The comment I was referencing was That's not why we're here, and the purpose of categorization is not, as another editor put it "an epistemological exercise" but, as TonyB said above, to help people find things, by BMK. TonyBallioni (talk) 09:45, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! --Grabado (talk) 09:54, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Why are you working on an article you want deleted ?

Why are you working on an article you don't care about and you want deleted from off of the face of Wikipedia anyways ?

Seems hypocritical.

Sagecandor (talk) 23:38, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

It's standard operating procedure. We try to salvage articles when we can, even if we're dubious of their ultimate chances.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  23:51, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Who is "we" ? Sagecandor (talk) 23:52, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Who else could I possibly mean?  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  23:54, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

The user commented already in the AFD, "Effectively all of the content would need to be removed". Therefore they don't want anything in the article to remain. At all. That is extremely insulting to the hours of research I've put in. And it makes one understand the user doesn't want the article to exist, period. Therefore their work on the article is likely in order to have it deleted at AFD. Therefore it is hypocritical of them to work on it. Sagecandor (talk) 23:58, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Sagecandor, as I said in my comment below, now that all the quotes are removed, the article is in prose that can be trimmed of content that appears to promote the subject. That means that it might actually change my AfD !vote if we can fix the issues that I think make it fail my view of our inclusion standards. The content as it stands now fails WP:NOT in my opinion. SMcCandlish, if you are interested in offering a second opinion the article is Elijah Daniel. I've explained on the talk page as to why I don't think we should include Amazon star ratings despite it being included in sourcing. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:03, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni:You said "Effectively all of the content would need to be removed". Pretty hard to get from there to any position but delete. Smacks of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Like not just I don't like the topic. But I don't like its existence. Like existence in this universe, and existence on Wikipedia. "Effectively all of the content would need to be removed" is a pretty extremist thing to say. Sagecandor (talk) 00:05, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

No, that is the standard used in deletion discussions as to whether or not something should be deleted as promotionalism. It has nothing to do as to whether or not I like the subject. I honestly have no opinion on him and hadn't heard of him at all until today. I'm just trying to improve Wikipedia and maybe try to get the article to the point where I could reconsider my !vote. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:09, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Saying, "Effectively all of the content would need to be removed", means you feel there is literally nothing to retain on the page. Nothing. Not a single fucking source. Not The Washington Post, not The Daily Telegraph, nothing. Yes, it is a pretty fucking extremist thing to say. And it is incredibly insulting to someone who spent hours and hours researching those sources and expanding the article, to say that not a single fucking one of the entire over sixty fucking sources can remain on the page, not one, zero. Yes, that is pretty extremist. Sagecandor (talk) 00:11, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Rather than dwelling on what you think Tony might have meant when he said something before, try listening to what he's saying now. People change their minds, and the more frequently clarify when something said earlier wasn't interpreted as intended. Thus ends my talk page stalking here. Not trying to get involved in this dispute, just to defuse it.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  00:13, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

IFF Tony were to say that his comment, "Effectively all of the content would need to be removed", was inappropriate, and redact it, that would go a long way towards assuring me their views are not extremist. Sagecandor (talk) 00:14, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Sagecandor, the page has not as of yet been rewritten to the point where I can redact it. I would like to, but the article does need to be improved before I can do that. You removed a lot of the promotional quotes, which goes a long way, but it still has a lot of promotional language to the point where it is going to need a significant rewrite. I'm actually trying to help you do that so I can strike the !vote because I know you are not a promotional editor along the types that we often see on Wikipedia. My normal policy when someone challenges my view of promotional content at an AfD is to strip it out to see what is left and then see what we can improve. I didn't feel I could do that when I commented on the AfD. I'm trying to see if I can do it now since the prose runs fluid and isn't filled with quotes. My goal here is to improve the article. You want it as a GA, I just want it read neutrally. Either way, we both need to do a lot of the same work. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:19, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Tony, saying that every single source from the article needs to be removed is incredibly toxic to future discussion and poisons your future efforts to go about then removing those sources from the article. It colors your intent as you previously stated, and shows your true colors of, "Effectively all of the content would need to be removed". No, I strongly disagree we should not remove every single source from the article, thanks. Sagecandor (talk) 00:23, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Sagecandor, as I tried to explain at the AfD and am saying here: my issue wasn't with the sourcing but with the language of the article, which reads as if it is promoting the subject. It still does. I'm not going to strike the statement until that is fixed. If it can be fixed, which at the time it looked like it couldn't, I will gladly strike my !vote. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:33, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Tony, you said, "Effectively all of the content would need to be removed". Not one word can remain? Not one sentence? Not one letter? Not even his name, the name of the title of the page and the name of the person? Sagecandor (talk) 00:36, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Sagecandor, at the time that I wrote that statement, the article required a fundamental rewrite to comply with policies on NPOV and promotionalism. It still needs a significant rewrite. The article that will come out of that rewrite will be a very different article from the one that I commented on. If we can't achieve that, then it is my belief the article should be deleted per WP:NOT. If it can be rewritten, then I will change my !vote to keep. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:38, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Tony, that is a lot different than saying, "Effectively all of the content would need to be removed", which says not one word, not one letter, should remain. Sagecandor (talk) 00:40, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Sagecandor, I've been very patient trying to explain to you what I meant. I do not see those phrases as being different: a fundamental rewrite is a removal of the existing content and reshaping it to a different article. If my use of imprecise language offended you, I'm sorry, but I'm not striking it until the article is brought into line with our standards. I'd appreciate it if you moved on to the actual content discussion on the talk page. I have a reputation among some around here for being quite practical and I promise you my intent is not to try to undermine your argument in the AfD. I really just want to see if the article is fixable now that it has cohesive prose to work with. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:46, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for apologizing for your imprecise language. I strongly disagree with you that the article needs to have every single part of its content removed. That is extremist and unnecessary. You've made your views known. It is highly unlikely you'll ever want the page to be a "Keep" if those are your extremist standards. Therefore your work on the article is tainted by your comments and your admission that you want literally all content removed from the page. Sagecandor (talk) 00:48, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Sagecandor, would you mind if I asked MelanieN to provide a third opinion on this content dispute. Melanie and I have worked together on articles before and get along well, but she has a reputation for being impeccably neutral and is one of our best editors on Trump-related subjects. I nopinged her here so it didn't look like I was asking without your consent. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:25, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I would mind and I do object. With all due respect, your prior comment "Effectively all of the content would need to be removed", combined with your acknowledgement of involvement with the user, combined with the user's prior involvement on multiple Trump pages, leads me to object. Sagecandor (talk) 01:27, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

@Sagecandor: I don't think that it is fair to Melanie to lump her with my AfD comments, the last BLP AfD we commented on we actually disagreed quite a lot. I also have no idea what her views on Trump are other than she edits in the area and is respected. I won't reach out if you are opposed. As I mentioned above, I am trying to get this article to a point where I think it is not anywhere close to promotional so that I can !vote keep. There is also MrX and JFG who are familiar with recent American politics articles. I also have no concept of where they stand on things like this. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:52, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Strongly disagree and object to one of those, the other not so much, so I'll just say let's not for both. Sagecandor (talk) 01:53, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

IFF your personal POV standard for voting "Keep" is, as you said, "Effectively all of the content would need to be removed", then I don't want to have that article with no content and zero letters whatsoever on Wikipedia, as it would have zero information for our readers beyond the subject's name and basic occupation. Such an article would naturally fail at WP:AfD, and fail to demonstrate notability. Which would allow others to vote "Delete" at the AfD, which would get the article deleted. Sagecandor (talk) 01:55, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, I want to get the article in line with policy, and I think you are misunderstanding my views here. If the subject is notable, I would prefer it not be deleted, but the article as written is promotional and that needs to be fixed to be in line with WP:NOT. If you look at what TJW said at the AfD, he noted that stubify was also an option if it was so promotional. I'm not even trying to do that. I just want it to read neutrally. Please consider reaching out to one of the two editors I mentioned above for a third opinion. I promise all I am trying to do here is improve the article. You'll have to go through all of this again with someone else during a GA review if the article isn't deleted, and if anything the changes I am trying to make will increase the chance of the article being kept. I'm sorry you have such a bad opinion of me, but I don't of you: we just disagree on what is and isn't promotional in a BLP. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:02, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

The more you keep insisting on your comment "Effectively all of the content would need to be removed" and to suggest to stub the article and get rid of the entirety of all of my research and effort, the tougher it is to believe what you are saying. I'll gladly have the article NOT be deleted at this point in time. And then address GA issues if and when it gets to GA review if and when it survives not getting deleted. Sagecandor (talk) 02:05, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Please stop removal of large amounts of sourced info during an ongoing deletion discussion

Please stop removal of large amounts of sourced info during an ongoing deletion discussion.

You have done this twice now.

This is disruptive.

Please stop.

Sagecandor (talk) 23:40, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Sagecandor, per my edit summary I was going to explain this on the talk page, but I received your above message and was responding to it. I follow 1RR, so I have no intent of reverting again. I'll respond to the comment you left on the talk page an explain why the content does not belong in the article despite being sourced. In response to your above edit, I am editing because now that the article has all of the quotes removed, it is easier to trim of the promotional language and NPOV issues that I feel make it unacceptable for keeping in Wikipedia. If they are able to be fixed, I have no problem changing my !vote to keep. If the discussion ends as no consensus or keep, I don't want to keep a promotional piece inside Wikipedia. Either way, I am trying to improve Wikipedia in line with its policies and guidelines. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:47, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

You want the article deleted. You ignored my comments at the AFD. Please just leave it alone. You're actively removing sources during an ongoing AFD, which hurts the keep chances during the AFD. That is disruptive. Please just stop. Sagecandor (talk) 23:49, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

A compromise would be to remove the unencyclopedic material, but retain the sources as citations for something else in the article (adding something else that is actually encyclopedic if necessary). Win-win.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  23:56, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish:Yes, you are wise, that is a good compromise idea, I am trying to do that right now. Difficult to do that at the same time as another user is trying to remove the sources. During an ongoing AFD. An AFD where the user already commented, ""Effectively all of the content would need to be removed". Sagecandor (talk) 23:59, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Except he's already told you he won't revert you on these efforts, and already told you multiple times that your interpretation of his meaning and intent aren't correct. It would be more productive for you to drop the fist-shaking and go back to your sourcing work.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  00:19, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

It would be more productive for Tony to say that his statement, "Effectively all of the content would need to be removed" is a wrong thing to say, on its face, to remove every single source and every single word and every single letter of content that I researched for the article, is wrong. Sagecandor (talk) 00:25, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Reply

Not sure if that's the case, as the majority of the edit later resulted in compromise with the individuals or even outright editing myself to directly implement suggestions of others. Sagecandor (talk) 02:52, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Tony, thank you very very very much for your acknowledgment, "You're clearly trying to improve Wikipedia". That means a lot to me, coming from you. Thank you !!!!!!!!!!! Sagecandor (talk) 02:57, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Sagecandor, thanks for the reply, and not a problem on the complement. There are plenty of editors who I disagree with a lot and quite like and think they are trying to improve the encyclopedia. We just happen to be in disagreement here, but I am trying to help, because I know you are doing your best to improve our coverage of this topic.

On the 3RR, you did partially revert your own revert, but WP:3RR includes reversions of edits in whole or in part. Another editor removed Twitter, and you reinserted it. It is still in there, without there being consensus. I would suggest self-reverting to the external links as it was at this edit. There needs to be consensus as to what to include. You're working really hard on this and that is appreciated, but other editors do have concerns, and the best way to go about that is through the talk page. Like I said above, I personally hold myself to a 1RR. Its just a good way of working with people. TonyBallioni (talk)

Standby, was just thinking about doing similar thing myself. Sagecandor (talk) 03:02, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

 Done, trimmed section down to one (1) link only, per page cited by prior user, WP:ELMINOFFICIAL. Sagecandor (talk) 03:05, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I'm probably done with Mr. Daniel as of tonight: but I'll take a look at some point tomorrow and I will reevaluate my AfD position (though it doesn't look to be in any danger of deletion at the moment). I do want to encourage you to look at your use of language in the article. Listing all of his accomplishments is not necessary and is probably the thing that makes it most read promotional. I know you're doing it to show sourcing for the AfD, but I think you've already done that. I'd focus on telling the story of his life with the high points rather than documenting every moment. The article should be about the person, not the book :). Have a great night! TonyBallioni (talk) 03:12, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words about my efforts to improve the article. Sagecandor (talk) 03:13, 19 July 2017 (UTC)