User talk:Wiki11790/Archive 1

Welcome

I feel kinda silly giving someone with a barnstar a welcome message, but, as you appear to have joined yesterday, it might still be useful. So below is the generic welcome message. - Enuja (talk) 22:05, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello, Wiki11790, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome!

SUNY Binghamton

I notice that you've been deleting links to SUNY Binghamton as "unnecessary". None of the ones I saw looked unnecessary to me, so I've restored them. Any particular reasons for removing these internal links? Klausness (talk) 10:11, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed the same thing. Perhaps we have a Stony Brook University Alum that dislikes SUNY?  ;) BigManFred (talk) 13:40, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Items in Wikipedia articles can be linked to other Wikipedia articles that provide information that significantly adds to readers' understanding of the topic. This can be done directly ("Ant", which results in "Ant"), or through a piped link

• More than 10 percent of the words are contained in links;
• There are links to articles that are not likely to exist or if they did would have little significance in the context of the article;
• Low added-value items are linked without reason—such as, 1995, 1980s, and 20th century (this excludes special date formatting, see below);
• Two links are next to each other in the text, so that it looks like one link—such as internal links;
• A link for any single term is excessively repeated in the same article, as in the example of overlinking that follows: "Excessive" is more than once for the same term, in a line or a paragraph, because in this case one or more duplicate links will almost certainly appear needlessly on the viewer's screen. Remember, the purpose of links is to direct the reader to a new spot at the point(s) where the reader is most likely to take a temporary detour due to needing more information. (However, note that duplicating an important link distant from a previous occurrence in an article may well be appropriate [but see the exception about dates, below]. Good places for link duplication are often the first time the term occurs in each article subsection. Thus, if an important technical term appears many times in a long article, but is only linked once at the very beginning of the article, it may actually be underlinked. Indeed, readers who jump directly to a subsection of interest must still be able to find a link. But take care in fixing such problems. If an editor finds themselves "reflexively" linking a term without having a good look around the entire article, it is often time to stop and reconsider.) ("five new species", which results in "five new species" in the text, but still links to the article "Ant").

As per WP:MOSLINK

It did not seem that any of these internal links significantly added to readers' understanding of the topic.

• Graduate student unionization Most of the internal links to colleges and universities in this article contribute nothing to the discussion of unionization. Rutgers University and City University of New York are linked, they were noted as the first to unionize. Binghamton was merely one of a few that was involved in the 1984 revival. The internal link does not improve understanding in this particular article, it is merely a link to something that wasn't that involved. I would agree with your reversion were it justified, but this is internal linking for no good reason and decreases the readability of the article.
• David P. Barash There is only one mention of Binghamton University in this article, it does not add to the readers understanding of the topic. David Barash's notability is primarily derived from the work he did at University of Wisconsin-Madison and State University of New York at Oneonta.
• Suzanne Weyn There is only one mention of Binghamton University in this article, it does not add to the readers understanding of the topic. Suzanne Weyn, as noted in the article, is notable for her work after college.
• Flagship university Buffalo and Stony Brook were named flagship schools in the SUNY system. Your reversion is tantamount to vandalism.
• Richard Trexler Trexler's work while done at Binghamton University was significant. His involvement/association with the university is not. The article makes little mention of his activities at the university. The notability of the article is suspect.
• Nathan Englander Englander is a Binghamton alumnus, and the categorization for this article as such should be sufficient. The link does not add to the readers understanding.
• Binghamton University Events Center This article is already linked, multiple links are unnecessary.
• Fair Use Magazine This article will likely be deleted, it has little content and none specific to Binghamton.
• Richard Sternberg This article is already linked, multiple links are unnecessary.
• Bobbie Ann Mason Mason's notable work was done after attendance at Binghamton University, specifically starting at receipt of her degree from University of Connecticut.
• Quarry Hill Creative Center The mention of Spiegelman and a group from the University are not relevant to the creation of Quarry Hill. The link is more of a distraction than an element that adds to the readers understanding of the topic.
• Upstate New York This article is already linked, multiple links are unnecessary.
• Josef W. Meri This article makes one mention of the University, and does not in any way note any of Meri's work done there. His work at and after Oxford is of relative importance. The link here does not add to the understanding of the topic.
• Syracuse University This article is already linked, multiple links are unnecessary.
• Sonic Youth This article makes one mention of the University, and does not have any significant relevance to Sonic Youth. The link is a distraction rather than an element that adds to the readers understanding of the topic.-- _{Wiki11790  talk}  14:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Links like these have always been standard in Wikipedia articles. I understand that you believe that you are acting in accordance with the manual of style, but the manual of style isn't a set of rule to be imposed on editors, it is a series of guidelines which describe the way things are normally done. Yes, follow the MOS, but also follow the advice of more experienced editors.

It's also important to discuss things. Article styles depend on agreement. If you make an edit and someone reverts it, stop and explain your rationale on the article's talk page. And finally, you should minimise the use of templates. Many people consider it rude to try to communicate via templates. Type a few words, realise that you are a person talking to another person. Relaz a little. Guettarda (talk) 14:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

When's should a template be used? I'm relaxed, at least I think I am. I think it's unnecessary to link to a university just because it's on someone's resume. Some people graduate from an institution and continue to do remarkable work there, but all of the articles I've targeted based on the MOS were ones where the institution had little or no relevance to the subject. It seems particularly unnecessary to link an institution where someone received their undergraduate if the article is in the alumni category for it and if they went on to work and/or study at another institution for a higher degree more closely related to their significant work. Links like these are not being used for their expressed intended purpose, nor are they contributing to the articles. They reduce the readability of the article and are in essence a form of spam promoting the institution.-- _{Wiki11790  talk}  16:02, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I can see your point (though I do wonder why your edits focused almost exclusively on Binghamton), but your view is counter to accepted practice here. And there's no way of knowing what someone might want to use a link for. Why shouldn't a reader be interested in someone's undergraduate institution? The guideline you cite (WP:MOSLINK) is to avoid linkage of things like the words "avoid" and "cite" in this sentence -- things that really aren't relevant to the discussion. Someone's undergraduate institution, on the other hand, is relevant to a biography. It's perhaps not the most relevant thing, but it's relevant enough that you could imagine someone wanting to follow a link to the article while reading a person's biography, and that's why it is generally linked. Klausness (talk) 16:15, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to underline what Guettarda said. My reversions were in line with standard linking practice on wikipedia. As for the multiple links you mention, if I left in multiple links in the body of the article, my mistake. I did check for multiple links, though, and the closest I saw was a link in the body and another one in the infobox, which is not generally seen as a multiple link (that is, a single link in the article body is not considered a multiple link if there is another link in the infobox). Klausness (talk) 16:08, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Assume good faith

Also, continuing the Binghamton issue, I find it odd that you've left a boilerplate "assume good faith" warning on my user talk page. Nothing in my changes did not assume good faith. I disagreed with your edits (which were presumably done in good faith), because they are not in line with standard wikipedia practice, so I reverted them. I've also had edits of mine reverted by people who disagree with them -- it happens all the time on wikipedia, and it does not imply an assumption of bad faith. On the other hand, I see that you've just reverted some of my edits as vandalism. An edit that you disagree with is not vandalism, and calling it so seems to indicate a lack of good faith on your part. You're free to disagree with me about appropriate linkage (though I think you'll find that yours is a minority view), but I would ask that you assume good faith on my part. Specifically, in the flagship university article (which you call vandalism above), I was going by the article in the reference. If you have another reference that indicates differently, please add that reference when you edit the article, or at least note it on the discussion page. Deletions of referenced material without discussion are generally frowned upon. Klausness (talk) 16:08, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:MOSLINKS The flagship universities of the SUNY system are Buffalo and Stony Brook. You can read the [| State of the State Address] from former-governor Spitzer. If you were acting in good faith, you would have left the edit making the assumption that there was a credible source, even if I did not add it, and then inserted a request for verification. If you were acting in good faith, you wouldn't have made blanket reversions. -- _{Wiki11790  talk}  18:49, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but it's perfectly reasonable to undo an edit that replaces referenced information with different unreferenced information. That doesn't show an assumption of bad faith, it's just editing. "Assume good faith" doesn't mean "don't ever undo or change anyone else's edits." It just means "don't assume that an edit was made with the intent to disrupt." Just because an edit was not made with the intent to disrupt doesn't mean that it needs to be kept. You'll see plenty of reverts of good-faith edits all over wikipedia (sometimes even accompanied by an edit summary like "reverting good-faith edit" just to emphasize the point). Reversion of an edit is not in itself an assumption of bad faith -- if it was, there wouldn't be an "undo" link next to every edit in an article's history. Klausness (talk) 19:32, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

You just reverted my reversion of your Binghamton unlinkage in the Josef W. Meri article, and you called my original revert vandalism. You say above that the link added nothing, but you left the links for the schools from which Mr. Meri received his B.A. and his Ph.D. The only link you removed was for the school from which he received his M.A. (namely Binghamton). I'm having trouble seeing how the school from which he received his M.A. is irrelevant but the school from which he received his B.A. is not. And I certainly don't see how my edit could reasonably be considered vandalism. Klausness (talk) 16:27, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:MOSLINKS | WP:AGF | WP:NN I removed what appeared to be a unnecessary internal link. You can take issue with whether or not it was unnecessary, but the incompleteness of editing is not a justification for your re-reversion. Upon closer examination neither the Binghamton nor the UC Berkley links seem necessary, as neither is mentioned anywhere else in the article and Meri did nothing of significance at either institution. But it's not necessarily my responsibility to make all the changes. If there were multiple errors in spelling/grammar and I edited a few of them, then you found more of them, that wouldn't be a good reason to revert the edits I had already made. I choose to work on a subset of articles linked to certain pages, and when I come across issues related (perceived unnecessary links to BU) then I choose to make those edits. The totality of the relevance of internal links is not necessarily my priority. There are plenty of other wikipedians who are interested in higher education who can make the additional edits they feel are needed. Good faith assumes that given the opportunity and having the attention, I would make the same unlinkage for UC Berkley.-- _{Wiki11790  talk}  18:49, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how WP:AGF or WP:NN are relevant here. As for WP:MOSLINKS, as I said before, I think you're misinterpreting it (and I think you'll find that most wikipedia editors agree). In any case, my reversion was not vandalism by any stretch of the imagination. Please don't accuse people of vandalism unless they are clearly making edits with the intention of disrupting wikipedia. Good-faith edits (including reverts made based on legitimate disagreements) are never vandalism. Klausness (talk) 19:32, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Carptrash

Valid to point out what you did, but check out WP:DTR. You need to change your signature coding: there needs to be a space with "User talk". At the moment it's "Usertalk" which goes to the wrong place, namely an uncreated article called "Usertalk:Wiki11790". Ty 23:54, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I didn't even know TTR existed! DTR is widely cited and considered by most people, in my observation, to be etiquette - a civil personal note is more likely to be well received and win friends. However, you choice, but don't be surprised if you get a frosty reception from experienced users if you give them a template. As for the time and effort to design them - there are a lot of new users who require advice about guidelines, which experienced users are usually familiar with, so a different kind of approach is best. Ty 01:21, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Biogs (and generally)

Wikilinks, i.e. to other articles, are made where the reader might find them helpful (sometimes a redlink, where an article should exist, but doesn't as yet). This is a judgement call, but if articles on the person's schools, colleges etc. exist, then it makes sense to make a link. (There's no point making a link to an institution which has not got, and is not likely to get, an article.) It's not a question of giving weight by making a link, simply of giving access to whatever extra resources exist on wikipedia to supplement the main article. A reader may want to enquire further into the educational background of the subject to gain a fuller understanding of their whole life. As you say, this is the common practice, as is also linking to the place of birth and various other items. It is up to us to present the (verifiable/verified) facts, and then to let the reader evaluate those for themselves. They may or may not think the linked items are important, but they have the choice. Articles exist per, generally, WP:N, but article content is then not necessarily judged on the same basis: see WP:NNC. Ty 01:41, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Biography

Hi

You do understand that the removel of unsourced or poorly sourced biography applies only to contentious material. That does not apply to normal, uncontroversial biography that does not happen to have sources yet. DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:27, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

New WP:BLP enforcement type

Has there been a policy change of WP:BLP? I have never been actively involved with BLP related articles, but as far as i have always known only negative non sourced BLP's are prone to removal and/or courtesy blanking. Most times just unsourced sections are removed, not the entire article. I seriously doubt the methods effectiveness, as this method is prone to people just reverting the courtesy blank. Is there some form of maximum time before the article is sourced? If not, i fear the worst for new BLP articles, as they are never perfect on creation.

Apart from that, this article [1] did include a reference. Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 21:33, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

No there is no change. Only contentious, negative items should be removed if unsourced, and then only the contentious parts. Wiki11790 seems to have got a bit overenthusiastic. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:59, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Apologies for the article with a reference. But as for the others, based on my interpretation of WP:BLP I disagree with the reversions of the courtesy blanks. First to respond to User:Excirial, the policy reads "whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion". And as to the 'contentious' nature of the material removed, I can say that all of the material appears to be false because I heard it somewhere. The policy also reads "The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia, but especially for edits about living persons, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person who adds or restores the material."-- _{Wiki11790  talk}  02:05, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Kindly do not keep on mass blanking articles. BLP applies to contentious material, as has been pointed out to you above. You have now been told by three editors, including two admins, not to do this. If you continue, you are likely to be blocked for disruption. Consider putting tags such as {{unreferenced}}, {{refimprove}} or {{nofootnotes}}, where there are external links. Ty 04:17, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I have posted on AN/I about this. Ty 04:31, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Not verifiably true is not the same as false. It is also not the same as contentious. If "I hear somewhere" that Chris Hanson has signed an extension to his contract with NBC and put that in the article without source, it's not contentious material so it should be flagged {{fact}}. On the other hand, if "I hear somewhere" that he's been fired by NBC, then that is contentiouis and that sentence should be removed. "Do no harm" - if leaving the material in with a {{fact}} tag does no harm, then leave it in. Blanking the entire article is inherently more harmful than having useful content and should only be done when leaving the article is more harmful, as is the case with attack pages or other speedy-deletable. As a rule of thumb, if an BLP qualifies for WP:SPEEDY a courtesy-blank pending deletion may be in order. If it does not, then a courtesy-blank is inappropriate. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:52, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Please abide by the SPIRIT of WP:BLP and stop the courtesy blanking

BLP says: Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion, from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space. The proper thing to do is identify the contentious or otherwise-harmful material and either research it and provide a source or delete just that part of the article. Please do not courtesy-delete entire articles. If the entire article is an attack page, you may put a speedy delete tag on it. Another editor has reported your behavior on WP:ANI#Mass "courtesy" blanking and you can expect all of your courtesy blanking to be reverted shortly. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:36, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:BLP

Try to stay in the top three sections of this hierarchy.

As per WP:DR I am attempting to "stay in the top three sections of this hierarchy".

• To Address the Central Point - It is my contention that pursuant to WP:BLP all material that is unverified is contentious. And that contentiousness is only one of the criteria for immediate removal. Note the policy in a nutshell for WP:BLP

and

Real people are involved, and they can be hurt by your words. We are not tabloid journalism, we are an encyclopedia.

–Jimmy Wales

We must pay careful attention to all biographical material, "particularly if it is contentious". Not only if it is contentious. But we can make the assumption that all unverified material is contentious. For example if I heard somewhere that Chris Hanson signed an extension to his contract with NBC and put that in the article without source, it would be equally as contentious as if I heard somewhere that he had been fired by NBC. There's nothing to suggest that being fired and signing an extension are different from each other with respect to being contentious. Saying that Chris Hanson was fired could be perceived as negative, suggesting that there was something wrong his work with NBC and justified being fired. Signing an extension could be perceived as negative, suggesting that he wasn't qualified to find a job with a better network. the BLP policy reads "negative, positive, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion". Any sort of information that is not verified can be perceived as negative or positive. In any case, they would be potentially harmful to the reputation of the subject. Contentious can mean a number of things, but is in this context it refers to material that is marked by controversy, discord, dispute, and disagreement. The fact that an editor has identified the material (even if it is an entire article) and another editor has reverted this suggests dispute/disagreement. In the example of Chris Hanson, there is the appearance (or not) of doing harm. The opening section of WP:BLP policy points to the essay Wikipedia:Avoiding_harm, specifically of importance is the Ethics and consensus section. The section states

 "In applying the principle of "do no harm", it is often tempting for an editor to take 
 controversial actions under the principle of ignore all rules. In some cases, 
 it is appropriate to take immediate action without prior discussion, such as where there 
 is a flagrant breach of privacy. However, such actions should be discussed afterwards, 
 and reversed if there is a clear consensus to do so." 

No consensus was reached in the reversion of courtesy blanks. In the balance between providing accurate information and protecting the rights of living people we must fall on the side of caution.

• It is a Mistake to limit immediate removal to portions that are subjectively identified as contentious.

I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons.

–Jimmy Wales

• Specifics of courtesy blanks - These were not "mass blanking". If I were going to mass blank articles, I wouldn't spend the time to check for references nor even cite policy that explicitly states to immediately remove such material. By removing the material that I did, I made the attempt to prevent WP from distributing potentially harmful information about living people, based on the absence of any references for the material added. By reverting these edits, you undertake the responsibility of providing references and have not done so. If you believe that the information (all of it) is not contentious, then it is at least unverified. It is unfair to expect that I explain why each part of the articles are contentious if you aren't willing to prove that the entirety is verifiable. The burden of proof lies with the editor who wants to add to a BLP, not the editor who removes unverified information. In a normal article, time can be given to add references, or to add tags where they may be needed. But the key element in this situation is the nature of BLP articles. WP policy clearly identifies the difference and reasoning behind appropriate editing of BLP articles. And while not verifiable may not be the same as false or contentious, by editing an article under the clear assumption that contentiousness is required, contrary to the additions of other editors, my courtesy blanks make the articles in question contentious and contended.
• Please also note that not all external links are proper references.

 _{Wiki11790  talk}  18:09, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

One of my big beefs with your courtesy blanking is that you made no visible effort at all to look up the facts. If a BLP has no citations but lists 25 distinct facts, probably at least the basic biographical facts and the more prominent facts about this person's professional life are easy to get using Google. Furthermore, the most prominent facts about the person's life are so common-knowledge that it is more harmful to delete them than to leave them in unsourced.

To put it another way: If by some chance there were no article about Senator Ted Kennedy and I wrote a short article taking information from his congressional biographical page and from major current newspapers, both of which would show up in a Google search, but I neglected to add the citations, would that warrant a courtesy-blank? No, it would warrant either citations or a rewrite with citations. On the other hand, if I put in some obscure facts, particularly ones which would be potentially embarrassing, and didn't cite them then it's a no-brainer to delete those sentences.

By the way, if you Google-search the person and nothing in the article can be verified after a reasonably-thorough search, then WP:SPEEDY rather than blanking is the way to go. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 18:41, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

My greatest concern is the protection of the living subjects of BLP articles. I agree that more work could make many of these articles acceptable. But because of the sensitive nature of BLPs, it is incumbent upon us wikipedians to stand on principle and avoid even the appearance of impropriety. It is a bias to assume that any information about living people is "common-knowledge". To assume that the global body of WP users know about American Senator Ted Kennedy or any other living person is unacceptable much in the same way that assuming that "common-knowledge" about Jesus or Mohammed would be. Even if information is accurate, without the verification we cannot make assumptions about it, nor should we allow it to be documented and distributed in this encyclopedia. We have to have standards, and in this case we do in the form of WP policy. I believe your beef is with my interpretation of WP policy. Again, I take the responsibility of protecting living subjects of BLP articles over that of making WP articles more complete. In this case it means blanking unverified information which can still be verified later. It is a necessary prioritization. _{Wiki11790  talk}  18:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, if that is the priority, then you should also use the {{inuse}} tag and go back and fix up the references within a few hours of blanking. Except for marginally notable people, having no article for any length of time is harmful to the encyclopedia and, arguably, harmful to the subject of the article as it could be perceived as a deliberate oversight. For example, if two equally-notable people are running for mayor of New York, and both would meet WP:N if they had properly-sourced articles, and one of them has a properly-sourced article and one of them has an unsourced article. Both articles contain only bare-bones biographical information which is widely reported in their local papers and available on their respective web sites. By blanking the 2nd article and keeping it blanked for more than a few hours, you actually cause him harm. For marginally notable people this isn't such a big deal. If you aren't sure if someone is barely notable, assume the path of least harm and treat them as if they had more than marginal notability, and find and insert citations within hours of blanking the article. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 19:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

3rd opinion as requested at WP:3O: WP:BLP states that Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced., which is where I presume that Wiki11790 is getting the idea from. But the BLP policy also states that Article improvement to a neutral high quality standard is preferred if possible, with dubious material removed if necessary until issues related to quality of sources, neutrality of presentation, and general appropriateness in the article have been discussed and resolved, Biographical material about a living individual that is not compliant with this policy should be improved and rectified; if this is not possible, then it should be removed and Page deletion [I presume, to a less extent, courtesy blanking] should be treated as a last resort, with the page being improved and remedied where possible and disputed areas discussed. I interpret this as, try and fix the article by sourcing it before blanking/deleting.  Atyndall93 | talk  11:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Admins

See WP:DEAL The opinion of an admins can be important, but should not be used as an excuse for not reaching consensus, especially consensus about the interpretation of WP Policy.

I just wanted to say that becoming a sysop is *not a big deal*.

I think perhaps I'll go through semi-willy-nilly and make a bunch of people who have been around for awhile sysops. I want to dispel the aura of "authority" around the position. It's merely a technical matter that the powers given to sysops are not given out to everyone.

I don't like that there's the apparent feeling here that being granted sysop status is a really special thing.

— Jimbo Wales, wikimedia.org archive entry, gmane archive entry

 _{Wiki11790  talk}  18:09, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Jimbo quotes on this page

Can you reformat your Jimbo quote ciations so they are in [http://www.blah.blah title] or [http://www.blah.blah] format rather than <ref>...</noref> format? Without a <references /> those citations aren't easy to use. Thanks. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 19:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure I can, but why bother on a user talk page? _{Wiki11790  talk}  19:30, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Precisely because it is a talk page. Without that format the ^[1] reference tags are useless, a user has to edit the post to get the URL to go to the reference. If it were an article page, it would have a proper references section. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 19:29, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

User page

If you'd like to add your user page to some categories that describe you, please feel free to browse the Category:Wikipedians tree to find some that you'd like — but user pages aren't supposed to be filed in article space categories. Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 14:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Improper GA review

I have reverted your GA review of John McFall (athlete). This is not a proper review. The article looked close to me. The correct thing to do was offer suggestions for improvement and put the article on hold for seven days to allow for improvement. The article did not meet the Quick Fail criteria, so I have re-added it to waiting list at WP:GAN. 03:02, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

grinding chain

please see my message on the grinding chain talkpage. and I am using proper edit summaries now and have been all through making the grinding chain. Danpatterson89 (talk) 15:54, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I've declined your speedy deletion request, which was a clear misuse of CSDA1. Please make sure you're familiar with the deletion criteria before you tag articles; A1 is intended for situations where it's impossible to identify what the article is about, which clearly doesn't apply here. – iridescent 16:09, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

The article is very short, and I don't see where there is enough information to tell what is the subject of the article. "People dance and rub their pelvises together" is the clearest explanation, but provides not context. What function does it serve? Is there anything about this action that has anything to do with anything? I disagree that it clearly identifies what the article as about, unless you're willing to accept a dictionary-style definition of a non-notable activity. Additionally at the time had one functioning reference to a howto website. _{Wiki11790  talk}   16:19, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

The article on Grinding (dance) had a redlink which means that the grinding chain article needs to be made. I did this - and although it is short at the momoent; there are some quotes from people about the grinding chain, as well as a link on how to participate in one. What function does a grinding chain serve? To answer that question you would probably have to answer "What function does dancing serve among teenagers?". Danpatterson89 (talk) 09:49, 1 July 2008 (UTC)