User talk:Thompson Is Right

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome[edit]

I would encourage you to go to the editor's talk page and let them know when you revert their addition, and why. Editors who make malicious edits like this one at gamepolitics.com need to be warned that they have behaved badly. I have given the IP a warning for the edit you reverted. It is good that you caught the vandalism and reverted it, after it had been up 47 hours. Welcome to Wikipedia, and I hope you make many more edits to improve Wikipedia.sinneed (talk) 17:48, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Warning[edit]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to International Game Developers Association. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Be warned that single-purpose accounts may be blocked

Above unsigned post shows in the log to have been made by IGDA (talk)
sinneed (talk) 05:07, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have recommended to the warning editor that the above note be removed promptly. I do not think it is appropriate. I confess that I find a warning about "single-purpose accounts" from one named after a professional society a bit ironic.sinneed (talk) 03:21, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FYI only - The warning editor is currently blocked indefinitely, so he or she will not be able to remove that (in my opinion) improper warning.sinneed (talk) 03:54, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

wp:edit summaries[edit]

When actively changing the MEANING of content, it is considered a bit unkind, perhaps even misleading, to simply say "copyedit"... I would encourage actually saying what the edit was... for example "trade group, not professional society" or "note that it is a trade group". This is VERY important if one is making a controversial edit, or pursuing an agenda.

I note that the warning editor above has reverted the entire series of edits. While I don't agree that any of them merited a warning, they were PoVish.

sinneed (talk) 03:21, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

I'll bear all that in mind. Thompson Is Right (talk) 11:09, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template Warnings[edit]

These can save a lot of typing, but it is important to be sure to fill in all the key fields. This one doesn't say which article (or my brain fried and I just can't see it... that happens sometimes) was edited poorly. If you go to your My Preferences page, there is a tool called Twinkle that you may attach to many browsers that can help automate the templates. It, like all software, is imperfect, but it is pretty nice. :)

You are welcome for the stuff that was useful and I apologize if I am spamming your user page with any that was not.  :) sinneed (talk) 15:36, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article he vandalised was Wikipedia. Thompson Is Right (talk) 17:52, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please pause, take a step back. Thank you for teaching me something new about wp:N[edit]

It is very OK to disapprove of the subject of an article. Please read wp:COI, then consider your recent edits. Lack of notability on the IGDA? The Choice awards alone give it adequate notability.sinneed (talk) 03:18, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you be more explicit? Not sure what you're trying to convey here. Thompson Is Right (talk) 03:22, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

::You have made a series of edits (a long, long, painful-to-fix series of edits), which seem to be at the best very much wp:NPoV. You have flagged series of articles with {{notability}} when notibility is clear. Perhaps you might study wp:notability more closely. The IGDA, for example, is well discussed in the media, if only due to the GDC awards. Your comment at the talk page, and your flagging the article with a notability flag seem to indicate you think the references need to be in the article to establish notability. They do not. The notability is in the existance of the notability, not in its inclusion in Wikipedia. If you are interested in improving the articles by adding the references, that is great. But flagging them when they are clearly notable is Not Good. Please don't do this again.sinneed (talk) 03:46, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"The notability is in the existance of the notability, not in its inclusion in Wikipedia." Sorry, I really don't know what you mean by that. On the other hand, "If an article fails to cite sufficient sources to demonstrate the notability of its subject, look for sources yourself, or: [...] Put the {{notability}} tag on the article to alert other editors.", from WP:N, seems to make perfect sense to and is what I was doing. Could you explain why you think that was wrong please? Thompson Is Right (talk) 03:55, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently, what is wrong is my understanding: I had understood that the {{notability}} flag was for use when the sources were not there. You have taught me something new, and I thank you.sinneed (talk) 03:59, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to hear we're in agreement! Thompson Is Right (talk) 11:29, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was wrong about your placing some of the {{notability}} tags. I do very much appreciate your citing the rule so that I had an easier learning opportunity. Thanks again. I am sure we will disagree (If interested you might see my user page sayings about that), but that isn't a bad thing, really. I am sure we will agree as well.  :) All the best. sinneed (talk)

AfD flagging question[edit]

Thank you for the heads up on the Stephanie Shaver AfD. You had written to me "Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message."

I am curious as to why I was contacted as a couple of weeks ago I was wondering if there was a way I could flag articles that I suspected would be AfD so that I would get contacted if and when it happened. I know I can watchlist but I go through periods of not not paying a lot of attention to much of the watchlist... What happens is I'll see an article and think "this is not notable by WP standards but would be a good fit for another wiki that specializes in the subject." I could AfD it myself but those seem to burn up my time... --Marc Kupper|talk 05:09, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A thought that just came to mind is I could watchlist Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/PAGENAMEE and the odds are I'll notice it in the watchlist but it'd be great if there was a way to flag "if AfD, CsD, etc then drop a message on my talk page...". --Marc Kupper|talk 05:18, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the notifications still have to be made manually. It would indeed be good to have it done automagically. Thompson Is Right (talk) 11:29, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Drive by AfD[edit]

Once I started looking into the Stephanie Shaver article to see if it passed WP:N I got the feeling you did what I'll call a "drive by AfD." No worries, I not too long ago I did a drive by CsD of an article one of the Wikipedia administrator's was working on. That got his attention! :-) I have no idea if this is a WP guideline but I'm thinking a good rule of thumb is to try to improve an article. If it's clearly a hopeless case and you get nowhere in the improvement efforts then nominate for AfD and you'll be able to cite your attempt to improve and (lack of) findings. In a couple of cases, rather than AfD, I merged articles into sections of larger articles and made the original articles redirects. No one ever challenged this. For example, if Stephanie Shaver had not been an author, and her work as a game designer was not quite getting up to WP:N then add a section to the game article for her and redirect Stephanie Shaver to that section. --Marc Kupper|talk 11:23, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, noone was sufficiently bothered for the past four months or so. I think that moving material and redirecting is deletion by the back door and prefer to community to decide. Thompson Is Right (talk) 11:29, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Every WP editor is on their own path in terms of understanding WP, rules, etc. This gets reflected in that of the 6,824,715 articles on WP roughly just 100 per day (0.004%) come up for AfD with a portion of those being deleted. The overall thinking seems to be that while many article appear to be AfD candidates only the most egregious are normally nominated and deleted. Hopefully you are not planning to AfD every single article that's been hatted non-notable for four months or more. :-)
WP:AFD seems fine with merge & redirect for non-controversial cases. For example, see redirects to Sunglasses and you'll see from the histories that nearly all of the redirects were stub articles that people merged into the main Sunglasses article over the years. If someone then sees that one of those redirects is a subject that merits its own article they have access to the old article history for reference and can edit away without needing to deal with WP:NPP or other hurdles. --Marc Kupper|talk 22:34, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Time's up[edit]

It didn't take long to get depressed again about the prevalence of petty vandalism on the one hand and the double standards of administrators on the other. Good bye, and thanks for all the fish. Thompson Is Right (talk) 15:10, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Giving it another go ... Thompson Is Right (talk) 20:11, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, just can't be bothered. Thompson Is Right (talk) 21:17, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Thompson_Is_Right&oldid=1065974261"