User talk:Gavin.collins/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Holman Fenwick & Willan

Hi, regarding this page's AfD: none of the references are from court circulars, so I don't understand your comment and have commented as much at the AfD. Do you have an issue with the references and sources this article in fact cites? I've updated them to include UK mainstream legal reports. The Chambers Guide and The Lawyer are not non-notable reports, as far as I know. Thanks. Unlikelyheroine 12:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

• I do have an issue with the references in that they are very thin in terms of context. The sources given are: Chambers & Partners - a legal directory; The Lawyer.com is a magazine about law practise. I can only observe that outside of the usual trade publications, the article does not cite any notability. If is any consolation, I think the article on Clifford Chance fails WP:CORP too for lack of references. --Gavin Collins 13:30, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Corporate libertarianism

I declined your request that the instant article be speedily deleted as spam inasmuch as it doesn't facially serve only as blatant advertising and because we interpret criteria for speedy deletion, including G11, narrowly; that the article had been edited by several users but had theretofore not been tagged as blatant spam, further, suggests that there existed at least some belief that the article might serve some encyclopedic purpose (covering, for instance, an economics concept advanced in a[n ostensibly notable if relatively insignificant] book). I am not at all sure, though, that the concept/phrase is sufficiently notable as to merit encyclopedic inclusion (I don't know, in fact, that even a redirect thence to When Corporations Rule the World would be appropriate), and so I would encourage you to suggest that the article be deleted, either through AfD or PROD, in order that the community might consider the notability of the concept and the propriety of our covering it in a standalone article or even referencing its tenets more-than-cursorily in the article about the book. Should you have any questions or should you think me to have erred here, you should, of course, feel free to write me at my talk page. Cheers, Joe 19:18, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Your arguments against the speedy deletion are eloquent, but I put it to you that the article was indeed created with the intent to promote the commercial interests of an individual. Promotion of individual or organizational endeavour (as in this case, a book), is not necessarily self-seeking or can be categorised as spam in itself. On the other hand, nor does the fact that the article has been edited by several users (related parties perhaps?) make the article encyclopaedic. By extending your analogy that the article does not facially serve as blatant advertising, once the veil of intent is formality is lifted, it is clear that this article purporting to be an encyclopaedic article is in fact an example of self-promotion similar to an author writing a review about his own book on Amazon. Proof, I would suggest is apparent in the fact that the contributors of the article did not see fit (or find time) to include reference to the book to any other article would lead me to the (cynical) conclusion that this article is indeed self serving spam.--Gavin Collins 21:53, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Gavin, there's no point discussing here, if its going to be discussed, it might as well be discussed at AfD, where I see it now is. DGG 03:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

But I came here after taking a look at journalserver. I hadn't known about it, & I thought there was little in that realm i didn't know; I checked, and they actually do have a few journals with a few issues each. I see why I hadn't noticed. DGG 03:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Dynamic Software

Gavin, I just started re-writing this article one day ago and reposted it last night. It is my sandbox and is redirecting here. Admins saw the old article as not having enough info. I did the redirect so that I could get input on the proper writing of this; Now you say it looks spammy. Could you suggest a way to improve the article instead of suggesting it to be deleted? I never get things correct this way. I want to write a good article. There is good deal of software this company produced and I would think it should be included in Wiki. I would appreciate help not, suggestions for deletion.

I included it as a stub, so the other article that is almost is completed has a place to point to. --akc9000 9:49am, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

My view is that the article is in substance an advertisement, and as such should be deleted. --Gavin Collins 16:07, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Gavin, I have sourced the document and the history of the company is complete to 2005. Please let me know if your view is the same. Its still not done, but it is until 2005.

--Akc9000 22:20, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

A small point

I wouldn't use the phrase "propose delete" unless I were placing the proposed deletion template itself. AFD's instructions suggest that the edit summaries should read Nominated for deletion: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName in the article edit itself, Creating deletion discussion page for PageName for the AFD discussion page, and Adding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName when linking the AFD discussion on the daily log. For the deletion rationale itself, just say "this article is X and fails WP:Y" or something like that. You're on AFD; it's obviously a deletion, and you're obviously the nominator. It will reduce some confusion, as Prods often end up on AFD when contested. Happy editing! --Dhartung | Talk 09:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Point taken --Gavin Collins 09:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Explanation

The template, {{LGAT}} is related to the Business WikiProject, because virtually all of the Large Group Awareness Training organizations market themselves as self-help / life improvement groups structured as for-profit privately owned companies. Though, there are a few of them that are structured as religions or spiritual groups. Smee 17:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC).

Ethnic English

Would you consider the term Ethnic English as rcaist in the same way as Ethnic Irish is racist?

I am of Afro/ Caribbean / English mother descent from Liverpool studying race law. And I do not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Toxteth34 (talk • contribs) 07:18, June 4, 2007

For your information, the term "Ethnic English" is a supremacist neologism used to promote a form of triumphalist ideology by which members of certain racist organisations use to view themselves as superior to the rest of society on the basis of their self-proclaimed ethnic origins. The term is not used outside of this context, as it runs contrary to enlightened state policy of Multiculturalism, by which citizens of the United Kingdom can have parity of esteem, regardless of their origin. The only explanation as to why the term is used by supremacists is that it is a form of alliteration, making it more easily absorbed into the ideology of (otherwise illiterate) racist organisations. For that reason, the term "Ethnic Irish" has not become a widely used neologism. --Gavin Collins 05:12, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Finance in Maldives

A "{{prod}}" template has been added to the article Finance in Maldives, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but yours may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Gavin Collins 03:32, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Gavin Collins, you are mistaken. This article was not created by me. It was created by wikipedia user Waddey. Thanks --Oblivious 04:18, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem. I noted that you had made some contributions to the article, so I assumed you would appreciate the deletion warning. --Gavin Collins 17:19, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Floating charge

I am not normally this vain about my articles, but how on earth did you come out at stub class for the article on Floating Charge on the assessment scale? I was a bit surprised that it didn't make B class ("Has several of the elements described in "start", usually a majority of the material needed for a completed article. Nonetheless, it has significant gaps or missing elements or references"), much less start class ("The article has a meaningful amount of good content, but it is still weak in many areas, and may lack a key element"). Are you intending to put a rationale in later for your reasoning on the assessment? --Legis (talk - contribs) 20:50, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

In fairness to you, the article has a lot of merit and I for one applaud the work you have done on such a difficult and technical subject. If you are unhappy with the assessment I have given, please feel free to make an appeal to other assessors of the Buisness and Economics project on our discussion page. Before providing you with rationale beind my assessment, I would ask you not to take offence or to be put off from making further contribution to Wikipedia. The rationale behind my assessment is as follows: The content of the article is shrouded in technical terms, and would probably lead a layman to note that the topic was written in a style not commonly used in the rest of Wikipedia; the references cited included several court cases but no books or any academic journals written by others, which causes me to suspect that the references that were given were given to give credance to the author's own point of view. I have therefore labeled this artilce as a "stub" on the basis that it might help some readers, but I beleive they would have to refer to other sources to obtain a clear understanding of the topic. --Gavin Collins 03:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

No offence taken, but I just thought it a bit odd. The other article I wrote which got assessed by WikiProject Business & Economics was Board of directors, which I thought was very similar in focus, and it was rated as A class, which I thought far too high (not least given its length). It just didn't sound to me like there was much consistency between the two assessments, but I certainly wouldn't intend to appeal an assessment or anything of that like - I just thought it a bit odd. --Legis (talk - contribs) 07:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of free cash flow?

Gavin, you could edit the free cash flow article yourself to correct any problems. Deleting an article because it has a mistake is like trying to swat a fly with a sledgehammer. The article doesn't meet any of the criteria for deletion. --JHP 18:21, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

The deletion notice states that the article does not meet Wikipedia because it is biased in favour of the author's point of view, because the text of the article actually runs contrary to information about the topic given by the external link. I should also have said that its content cannot be verified as the article does not cite any verifiable source that can be cross checked. The topic is an important one, but because the article is not only incorrect and misleading, I believe it worthy of deletion, but do not take offence - this is my opinion only and you should contest the deletion if you think I am mistaken. --Gavin Collins 05:29, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Bias is not a criteria for deletion, but for flagging for further editing or POV. In addition, I'd note that the process you're using (propose for deletion) states that it is to be used when "An editor who believes a page obviously and uncontroversially doesn't belong in an encyclopedia can propose its deletion" ... using that process. It seems to me that the way you are using this process in many cases seems to overstep the way this is intended to be used, i.e. where an article clearly has no content or clearly meets the criteria for deletion. Also, note that the criteria for deletion does not say "cannot be verified", but "cannot possibly be verified". To me, this implies that a good faith effort is required to see if information in reliable sources can be found (and hence the article fixed in future); deletion should be used primarily where the article cannot be salvaged or improved, as it is fundamentally irredeemable.--Gregalton 13:01, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I acknowledge that I may have misunderstood the deletion process. In my defense, I view the article to be so badly written that the point of view expressed by the author is actually misleading, and when combined with lack of proper research, that the quality of the article was so low as to warrant deletion from Wikipedia. I note that you have removed the AFD notice on the grounds that I am over-using the deletion process; you are perfectly entitled to do so and I acknowledge your judgment; I will therefore assess the article as a stub rather than pursue deletion further, in the hope that it will be corrected and citations will be added by in the future as you envisage. --Gavin Collins 14:12, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps a {{POV}} tag would also be appropriate based on your review. I do agree that the AFD was a bit extreme but I'm an inclusionist. Morphh ^(talk) 15:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Gavin, for keeping an open mind on this. I also note your reference to this on the biz and econ project talk page. I'll respond also there, but would say that (broadly speaking) I guess I'm an inclusionist as well. Although I didn't know that terminology existed before, the description at the page broadly fits my approach (with some exceptions).--Gregalton 07:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: CoffeeCup Software

Dear Gavin, Thanks for getting in touch with me aboout this article. I don't quite know why you directed that message to me, since I did not create the article, and I had also been in touch with the creator of the page for exactly the same reason. I classed it as blatant advertising and the guy who started the page and was editing it assured me he would bring it up to an acceptable standard so that it was not viewed as an advert, which is not what he was aiming for. I have no objections to you tagging it for CSD since I wanted to do the same! Regards, Thor Malmjursson 11:52, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

My proposal for speedy deletion on grounds of spam was recinded as well. The company has some notabilty, so I have tagged the more spammy tail of the article with the Advert template. I have reconsidered my assessment of the article and now think AFD would be inappropriate for this article either. --Gavin Collins 12:22, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Homer Pace

I just reversed an edit you made to this article, in which you removed two (current) links documenting a fact, then tagged the item as "unreferenced." Could you explain your reasoning here? --Orange Mike 16:21, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I must have removed the external links by mistake, apologies. Even with the links restored, it is unclear where the content for this article originates, which is why I tagged the article with the unreferenced template. Would you know if this article based on those links or from some other source? --Gavin Collins 16:30, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

The article's been around for a while, but I have no knowledge of the original source(s). The deleted references were to the "Accountancy Hall of Fame" acclamation. If you feel the article as a whole is inadequately sourced, then tag it for that.--Orange Mike 16:44, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I will restore the unreferenced tag, and hopefully the orginal author or other contributor will be remined to add citations later. --Gavin Collins 16:48, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Congrats. Your tagging seems to have stimulated a considerable improvement in the article. --Orange Mike 19:37, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

advice sought

i am a relatively new user to wikipedia, but have tried to do high-quality work. you recently tagged an item for deletion, on which i had been involved. i probably agree with your assessment; however, i wanted to email you some questions i have. is it possible to email you my questions directly, without this being part of a community discussion? thank you for any advice Journalist1983 15:40, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Please feel free to leave questions here. --Gavin Collins 16:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

thank you anyway.Journalist1983 16:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion tags

Hello. You recently put a speedy deletion tag on this version of the article Herman A. Flurscheim. Please make sure that you only place speedy deletion tags on biographies where no claim of notability is made. In this case, while I understand that one might question the importance of the article, it clearly had a couple of references and the claim that he "was a pioneer dry goods merchant and art collector. He was one of the first merchants to move to Fifth Avenue". In such cases, please submit the article to articles for deletion instead. Thanks, Pascal.Tesson 02:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I admit being over zealous in the use of speedy deletion in the context. I agree that the article should be retained and I have assessed the article as a Business stub. --Gavin Collins 08:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Fisk Johnson

I have reviewed the articles and the external links listed, and all of the information in the article is supported by the listed links. What is your problem?Racepacket 06:10, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Are you the author of this article? If so, which of the links is the source of the article? It is not clear what is the sources for the statements it contains. --Gavin Collins 16:30, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Stick with it in Wiki

This might all seem to be a bit chaotic right now, but hang in there, keep doing what you're doing, and everything will turn out for the best. You're doing good stuff -- keep at it! -- • • • Blue Pixel 03:39, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I am still here but research is time consuming and means it will be a while before I find more 3rd party sources for my next contribution. --Gavin Collins 16:22, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Professions

Hi Gavin, the article is a bit of a mess and many of the points (not all) are unsourced. Some of the points made seem unreferenced; for cleanup it requires some references...that means using more than one source. Standard procedure means that unsourced points, esp. contentious ones, should be fully sourced. I add a bibliography and am hoping to reference some of the points myself in due course, but please ago ahead yourself as well. Hope this clarifies? thanks Peter morrell 12:21, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

With regard to the article Profession, I have noted that you have tagged its content as requiring references for verification and clarification. The material that I have added to the the article was sourced from a third party, namely Perks, R.W.(1993): Accountancy and Society. I will with your permission cross reference each sentence with the source and expand quote further from this souce where clairification is requested. --Gavin Collins 14:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Gavin, it might not be necessary to do EVERY sentence, but doing some of them would improve it because as of now it reads like original research that someone has just written out with just an odd ref here and there scattered within the text body. Also, what do you think to that list of 22 points 'characteristics of a profession?' I think much of that is excess baggage and/or dubious or at best rather inapplicable as sweeping generalisations for ALL professions...maybe it can be condensed down and again referenced ? thanks Peter morrell 15:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

It is interesting that you beleive it to be too long, but as you see from the reference, the source which the list comes from (Perks above), runs into 8 pages. Perks states that he has only listed 22 characteristics which were identified by between 5 and 9 other authors who have compiled similar lists, so these characteristics cannot be said to bet based on original research. A further 6 characteristics identified by only two other authors have not been included. I will add references to each characteristic to avoid any doubt. --Gavin Collins 15:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the problem lies in generating such a wide perspective from only ONE source. I do not know Perks, is it online? I am collating other material to use in the citations. I already have two which dismiss Perk's point about ethnicity and equal pay in professions, for example. If we can bolster the article with a wider range of good refs, it will be vastly improved. How does that sound? thanks Peter morrell 16:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

My apologies for calling you Graham! sorry about that I have now corrected it. Peter morrell 16:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Are you aware that there was only ONE source for this article before I added Perks as a second reference? I would be grateful if you would withdraw your last three edits, including the one where you added your own unsourced amendments based on your own point of view. In particular, I draw your attention to your edit of 11:35, July 23, 2007, which you used to "tag unreferenced POV statements" but also to add your own unreferenced POV statements. If you believe my contribution to be "sweeping generalisations", why did you add your own unsourced comments? And why did you not add references to articles that you yourself have created such as Professionalization? I am concerned that you are intentionally provoking an "Edit War". Please undo your last few edits, thereafter I am happy to work with you on a collabrative basis, rather than have you make changes which are not helpful. I am grateful for the spelling mistakes you so kindly corrected, but I am not going to argue if think that the content that I have added is unsourced, even if I have cited my references. --Gavin Collins 21:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

There is only so much time in a day Gavin. You have not answered any of my questions. This article has only one or two sources. That is not good. Any changes I added were to base future, hopefully soon, references on; I have no intention of leaving it that way. I am dismayed that the '22 points' which you regard as sacrosanct, I think is both unwieldy and largely unsourced, is even in this article. Where does it come from? please let us collaborate I do not want or seek an edit war. I have now collected a range of good new sources today which I shall endeavour to reference into the article. There are also many sub-topics not yet included in this article, such as frictions, roles, encroachment, and demarcation within professions. These need to be added in as this is supposed to be an encylopaedia. Can I count on your cooperation or disagreement? I do not think undoing previous edits is the way forward at this stage. Let us cooperate. thank you Peter morrell 21:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I must decline your offer as I am concerned that our discussion will only lead to an Edit war. I understanding that you have entered into disputes with other Wikipedia editors, and I can see that entering into further discussion with you will only provoke further arguments. --Gavin Collins 05:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Gavin, you are not under attack and are overreacting. I have merely made very some minor amendments to the article which are not based upon the sole profession of accountancy, but which I based upon a wide range of professions. The features of a profession as a sociological term cannot be successfully reduced to accountancy and it is grossly simplistic to pretend that. Just because I have had a recent edit problem with the highly controversial article on homeopathy is no basis for you concluding that I wish to edit war with you. That is not the case. So you paint me with a very black brush and that is unfair and totally unjustified. I cannot understand why you are acting like this and acting just as if this article is yours. Please be more reasonable. All I asked for is more time to reference the article which is what I am doing - collating reference material from a wider range of professions entirely drawn from the sociological literature. What pray is so outrageous about that? Peter morrell 06:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Offending edits removed

I have now removed the citation requests from the 22 points that you did not like me editing. I will leave that section alone in future but will be pressing ahead with other changes to the article. I would again request that you please begin to be reasonable and courteous, which is all I have been with you. thank you Peter morrell 14:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

:)

rnnlar has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Re:Dispute Resolution

It is indeed unfortunate that a single user's personal grievances against a particular company should result in a very public display of wasted time and effort, along with a whole host of unnecesary gibberish otherwise better reserved for misbehaving children. I can agree to a crease-fire, but I would hope to see a viable alternative when dealing with someone as trigger-happy as User:Russavia, who seems to see no issue in reverting multiple times over even in the face of opposition and lack of concensus.--Huaiwei 16:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

GURPS AfD nominations

Have you considered redirecting all of the ones you find objectionable to the List page? The ones that people object to being redirected will be reverted and then you can nominate those for deletion, but I think many of them will stick. It could save us all a lot of process. -Chunky Rice 17:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• I am not sure how that works, as any edits I could make are likely be reverted, or contested. In any case they are listed on the List page already. --Gavin Collins 22:10, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Dear Gavin, while I second the above idea of Chinky Rice, I must also remark that your nominations tend to sound somewhat hostile in tone. In the first ones you accused the articles of spam, now of "fancruft" and in doing so you link to the very WP page saying that this term "implies that the content is unimportant and the contributor's judgment of importance of the topic is lacking. Thus, use of this term may be regarded as pejorative, and when used in discussion about another editor's contributions, it can sometimes be regarded as uncivil and an assumption of bad faith". I am sure that we may be able to keep these debates civil, and even interesting in that they can help all of us to understand more both of the WP criteria and of the subjects of the articles. I for one am a GURPS player, but am happy to prune the unnecessary articles: I myself already redirected one, and shall certainly not revert your redirections on principle! Happy editing, Goochelaar 09:04, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:Fancruft also states: "There is also a positive side to the act of describing an article as containing cruft; those who would keep the information in it are stimulated to produce a better article to avoid deletion, or merge several unviably small articles into one with clearer focus. Concentrating, say, minor characters in a series can be good for them, as giving them what some may consider the "appropriate" amount of attention may avoid their complete removal from the encyclopedia." It is good to see you are doing this already. --Gavin Collins 09:26, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I've just added a comment to the AfD debate for the GURPS 4e Basic Set and I wanted to leave a note here to make sure you saw my comment. I'd appreciate a reply... thanks in advance for your time. :) Pinball22 14:30, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

• I hope I have replied to your comments in a comprehensive fashion. Regards, --Gavin Collins 15:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, thanks! Pinball22 17:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

pro starcraft

Hello Gavin Collins - rather than remove your notability tag on Park Jung Suk I thought I would come here to tell you why it should be removed. The very fact that he is a professional player of StarCraft means he is notable. This meets the criterion at WP:BIO: "Competitors who have played in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming or tennis." Furthermore sensitivity to the importance of different sports in other countries is critical in the fight against WP:BIAS.

Debivort 14:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

PS - My personal philosophy is that a tag such as the notability one should properly be placed on the talk page, rather than on the article, because, unlike e.g. a fact tag or POV tag, the reader doesn't need to be warned about the notability, only the editors do. Any chance you'd consider putting them there instead?

Response I note you have removed the tag in any case. I don't agree he meets the criteria of WP:BIO as there is no evidence from independent sources; unlike Competitors in a non-league sport such as swimming or tennis who inhabit the real world and receive lots of coverage in real newspapers & magazines, Park Jung Suk occupies a virtual world, which is relative annonymous, ephemeral, but ultimately non-notable. I will put your comments up for discussion and check if my understanding of the notability guidelines is correct of not. --Gavin Collins 20:28, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me if I'm intruding, but you are under a misconception that "Park Jung Suk occupies a virtual world" the Starcraft competitions do not take part in an anonymous corner of the net but are arena and stage events with thousands of cheering adoring fans, the leagues are played as televised events with commentries, ringside fanfare and all the razzmataz, that you would associate with "real world sport". And contrary to your assertion the players who become pro do make it into newspapers, magazines and onto television, however they usually make it onto Korean newspapers, Korean magazines and Korean television; however they did make it onto the BBC a couple of months ago (click here). I understand that this is not active bias on your part, but that you have extrapolated your own understanding of computer games and believe that the same must be true everywhere this is systemic bias. I guess an analogy would be darts in the UK, a real sport here with competitions, fans, sponsorship and television programmes but a non-entity everywhere else.KTo288 02:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)KTo288 09:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Response I think you an analogy is misleading as although computer games are very popular, they are a relatively solitary pastime, with little coverage outside of gaming magazines and fansites, although that may change in the future. I see no evidence of notability for Park Jung Suk, other than he was once the winner of a prize in Korea many years ago. The point is that notability is not inherited; if there was more independent information about him, then notability could be established regardless of his sport or nationality. Playing a popular computer game is not in itself proof of notability. --Gavin Collins 08:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Since you don't seem to have followed the link provided here is an edited down extract:

"In some nations gamers are looked down upon, but in South Korea professional gaming, or e-sports, is worth billions of dollars and players are seen as heroes...as if to prove that computer gaming is like sports, in a stadium used in the 1988 Olympic Games...Around 30,000 fans have turned up to see the biggest stars battle it out...they are playing Starcraft...It is the most popular game in South Korea and the only one with its own professional league." follow the link to read the article in full.

Contrary to your expectation and experience computer games in Korea are not solitary past times but spectator sports. Even non professional computer games are not played at home alone, but in commercial computer lounges were friends gather to socialise and play games. I think the analogy with Darts is valid, in that article there is a list of 11 single time champions each with his own article, plus a list of players who have never won a championship. This individual is not notable for playing a popular computer game, he is notable for playing in a professional sports league, which just happens to be based on a popular game, and of having been the champion of that league.KTo288 09:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

'Response Thank you, I am better educated about computer games as a spectator sport, but notability for Park Jung Suk is still to come. --Gavin Collins 09:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

No thank you for your patience and good grace in reading my arguements. In the article itself reference is made to two sources, The Chosun Ilbo and the JoongAng Ilbo both of these are mass circulation mainstream newspapers, a gist of what these papers have to say about Park Jung Suk can be discovered by usingBabel fish and Google language tools.KTo288 20:03, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Cork Street deletion review

Hi, just wanted to give you the heads up that I have listed Cork Street for deletion review, based on the fact that no consensus was reached in the deletion discussion. I am writing this message to all contributors of the discussion, whether they voted keep or delete. -- Roleplayer 23:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Although I am fond of this street, I think deletion was the correct action. --Gavin Collins 21:52, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Can you please stop?

This is a stopgap measure to ask you to stop from listing the four RPG books on AfD before the damage is done and rather to come and discuss the issue further on the relevant WikiProject. I'll be typing in a detailed explanation immediately after I finish this message. If you're not convinced or can't come to an agreement, there'll then be ample time to hold AfDs, nothing lost, right? --Kizor 09:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

• Response I have already entered into discussion, but my suggestions seem to be wasted. The articles I have put up for deletion can be categorised as non-notable Fancruft which does not belong on Wikipedia and should be moved to the relevant fansite. --Gavin Collins

• Request Can you provide a link to the discussion you mention above? In the meantime I'll just mention that according to the article on Fancruft you did link to, "Thus, use of this term may be regarded as pejorative, and when used in discussion about another editor's contributions, it can sometimes be regarded as uncivil and an assumption of bad faith." Fancruft is not a sufficient reason to delete articles for either a subject you have no knowledge of or one you personally detest.

09:13, 11 September 2007 (UTC) I very definitely did not want to do this, but here's the sob story. I'm currently on prediagnostic medication for ADHD as a part of testing for the condition. Conventional tests didn't indicate strong enough symptoms, but apparently they still try treating you to see if you improve. Unfortunately, if you don't, it has other effects. Twice in the past five days I've stayed up past 4 AM doing trivial things that aren't even urgent. For the last hour and a half I've mostly been fiddling around with unrelated pages, opening and abruptly closing Star Control and Minesweeper. I read my watchlist twice before remembering what I was looking for to link you to. And there's an unseasonal headache coming on. So I need to ask for more time. Fortunately, this issue isn't in a hurry. I'll be back once... well I just spent far too long a time trying to think of something and getting distracted, so let's say ASAP. --Kizor 10:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

• I hope you get better soon. --Gavin Collins 10:49, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you for your concern. It's precious by its rarity alone on the Internet. Suffice it to say that I got off those things immediately and am back to normal. The biggest blow was to my pride for dropping the ball so badly on this page and failing to keep what happened from happening. What I had to say is no longer relevant, but I'm still concerned about some things. In particular, there's a comment I left on your AfD of Castle Falkenstein about your conclusions about role-playing games, a field you're not familiar with, and how they can be dismissed as "gaming instructions." I wanted to discuss the matter, so it's copied below. --Kizor 03:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

"*Gavin, can we talk about this? You seem to be sticking fast to a definition that all other parties consider inaccurate. It's a possibility that you consider the others telling you so biased (and I'm not saying you do, but hope that you don't find voicing the idea offensive as you have been very liberal with suspicions of biases and conflicts of interest in the past). If that's the case, will you listen to me? I have basic knowledge of role-playing games on account of being a geek - it's a cultural thing - and I've studied some RPGs because I was curious how they worked, but I've never played a tabletop RPG, don't have strong feelings about them, am not affiliated with the RPG wikiproject, and the closest thing to a game corporation that I've ever worked for was a hospital.
*stops to take a drink of water*
And I'm telling you that the award for Best Roleplaying Rules was for that particular part of Castle Falkenstein. It's analogous to winning the Oscar for Best Cinematography or maybe Best Writing or Best Actor in a Leading Role. "Gaming instructions" is not a fair or accurate description. --Kizor 01:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)"

• Have a look at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive#Fancruft_and_Role_playing_games, where I think you will find all the points you have raised have been covered. --Gavin Collins 07:40, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

RPG-related deletion nominations

I'm getting increasingly concerned about the point behind your continued nominations for the deletion of gaming-related articles, and especially about misuse of WP:SPAM, WP:POV, WP:NEO, and WP:OR as the basis for those nominations. Your nominations of the various GURPS sourcebooks have largely resulted in/are moving towards keep results (for the more significant, award-winning books) or decisions to merge with the List of GURPS books article, so why not work with other editors on that article's talk page towards determining which books deserve separate articles and on appropriate merging of the ones that don't instead of continuing to nominate? And why do you keep asking people who know a lot about GURPS if they work for the publisher? Your first nominations all tried to dismiss all these articles as being promotional spam, despite the fact that they aren't written in a particularly promotional style and in some cases are for books that are no longer in print. I've tried to figure out what the reason for your belief that they're spam is, given those things, and have only managed to come up with the possibility that you had not previously heard of GURPS and are therefore assuming its unpopularity from that. In fact, GURPS has existed for twenty years, and has long been a popular and highly-regarded gaming system amongst RPG players. (Steve Jackson Games, the parent company, is not only the publisher of GURPS, but hundreds of other games over nearly 30 years.) It's far more plausible that these articles have been created/maintained by some of the many players of the game than that it's all a big spam campaign by a company which clearly is doing just fine selling its products without the Wikipedia's help. Your questioning did reveal the fact that one person involved in the making of GURPS does edit here, but does not imply that all people who are interested do, and that one person was both forthcoming about it and already had links from his user page that made it clear before you ever asked. Since your more recent deletion nominations did not seem to rely on WP:SPAM for a rationale, I was hoping you had come to realize from the response to your many AfDs that popularity, not corporate promotion, was behind the large number of articles on GURPS topics, but just three days ago you asked Goochelaar the same thing [1] in what seemed to me an extremely accusatory tone and to RJHall [2] in a similar (and disconcertingly McCarthy-esque, for something that I assume was not meant as a joke) tone. (In the question to RJHall, your next comment makes me think that either you hadn't read JHunterJ's statement in a previous RfA or that you weren't reading carefully enough to realize he and RJHall aren't the same person.) Why are you so determined to believe there's something nefarious going on here, to the point of failing to assume good faith? You've since moved on to nominating Star Fleet Universe-related articles for deletion, and this is where I got really confused about your use of certain policies for rationales... you've cited WP:POV three times, and I can't see what that has to do with SFU. None of the articles are advancing a particular point of view, and you've described some of them as "POV forks", which is a Wikipedia concept that doesn't apply to a factual description of a real game in any way that I can see. I'm not sure if you're misunderstanding what the SFU is (a long-standing setting for real, commercially-produced games), what WP:POV is about, or something else. In addition, you claimed that Xorkaelians violated WP:NEO, which I can't see any way that a proper noun could do -- if I had a kid and named him Xzkl, that might be a new word, but it's not a neologism, as it's a name, not a word. You also cited WP:OR, claiming that something that's primarily material directly based on the book in question is original research, when WP:OR clearly states that as long as it doesn't involve interpretation or synthesis, it's not. Ok, this has gotten entirely long enough, but these issues have been increasingly bothering me over the last couple of weeks to the point where I thought I needed to write them all out at once and get your response. Thanks in advance for your time in reading this and replying, and I hope we can come to an understanding on this. Pinball22 18:01, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

• In fairness to you, you have thought about this in detail, but this is not the place for me to answer. Put this on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) and I will give you an answer, which will be similar to WP:Fancruft. Note that I always think it possible that I may be mistaken, and you could be entirely right at the end of the day. --Gavin Collins 21:09, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

• I'm going to follow up some there, but... The SFU Klingons nomination in particular seems to indicate a lack of understanding both of the article context and WP:FICT. WP:FICT requires that there be real world context to the article discussing fictional material. The SFU Klingons article has that - the game books and history were cited, and the introduction puts the material into context.

There is certainly a large quantity of various fancruft in the middle, but the required context is there.

You also clearly misidentified this as an on-wiki POV fork of material, when in fact it's a source material fork (Star Fleet Universe is a fork off the old Star Trek series, independently and extensively developed since then).

Your approach to delete rather than fix it, when it meets WP:FICT, is highly problematic. Excess fancruft in the middle doesn't invalidate that the introduction and references meet the guideline.

I am also still extremely concerned that you're deleting material that you evidently don't clearly understand. This is not condusive to good decisionmaking.

Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert 21:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

• I understand WP:NOR to know that this article should not be in Wikipedia. --Gavin Collins 10:48, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Technomancer Press

Hi Gavin,

I hadn't logged in for a while and so did not get notice about the Technomancer Press article now. What is the process for getting the deletion reviewed? Technomancer Press recently was written up by Ars Technica as well as a number of other news outlets, was featured on the PAX 2007 front page, is the first company to support player generated content and has a whole host of wikilinks pointing to it. I'm sure the folks that passed it as a Good Article probably didn't weigh in on the consensus either. I'd like to give it a more fair shake. Can you tell me where I need to list it? Thanks. Archer904 07:25, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

• Reply There is a way to have the article restored, namely Wikipedia:Deletion review. I disagree with the Good Article status; it read like a Public Relations advertorial. Let me know if you put if up for review, or if you would like me to do it for you. I won't contest the review (I beleive it should now be for others to decide). --Gavin Collins 09:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Deletion edit summaries

Hi, I read the onging discussion at village pump with some interest, but have no strong opinions on the issue. It, however did pique my interest enough to look at you contribution list. I noticed that you have a long standing habit of using the edit summary "propose deletion" when you are commenting at AfD and when placing an AfD template on articles. This can cause a bit if confusion as when I read the summaries I at first thought you were using the WP:PROD process. I realize that this is a minor quibble, but it is confusing enough that I thought I would mention it. Dsmdgold 15:03, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure what I should be doing to avoid this confusion. What do you suggest? --Gavin Collins 08:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest "Nominate for deletion" or "nominate for AfD". "Propose at AFD" would also be acceptable, just about. SamBC(talk) 12:18, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Recent Templates

Gavin, I know we have had our differences, but I want to compliment you on your choice of templates in recent edits. I will be working with my project group on addressing any concerns you may have. Turlo Lomon 14:37, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this is definitely a better way to point out issues, and I do agree that there are a lot of RPG-related articles out there that need improvement in sourcing/style. Pinball22 16:59, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Lissome Avid Engineer

Gavin, I really need your assitance in regards to the AfD on this article. Not arguing with you this time. My response I am sure will surprise you. However, help is still needed. Turlo Lomon 11:53, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• I am not sure you can include these other deletions piggy back style, as I think this requires a different template. --Gavin Collins 12:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  • (ec) It's definitely possible, as I've seen it done, but I have no idea how to do so. SamBC(talk) 12:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  • What if we made an AfD for the rest of them, and then redirected that to the current AfD? So far, the general consensus is that all should go. I have zero experience with AfDs, so not sure if that would work. Turlo Lomon 12:35, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• I have done as you have suggested; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Denovah Avaku. --Gavin Collins 13:02, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Thank you. Delete opinion posted. Turlo Lomon 01:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jim Baen's Universe - Request details

Gavin, you voted:

• Delete as article content and primary sources cited are insufficient evidience to meet notablity requirements of WP:WEB. --Gavin Collins 09:45, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I have posted a reply and would like to know if you could please let me know how you feel the current article fails WP:WEB. Specifically, which of the three criteria I cited do you feel are not being met by the current article and why? I would appreciate more detail so I could see if the article can be modified to address your concerns.

Thanks,

KNHaw ^(talk) 17:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

• You can see my response at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jim Baen's Universe. I hope this expands sufficiently on my initial comments. --Gavin Collins 10:54, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

John M. Ford

It's gonna be hard to make the article on Mike Ford less elegaic, as it is (to the best of my knowledge) impossible to find anybody who's ever written anything bad about the guy. Please let us know what can be done to meet your concerns. --Orange Mike 13:33, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

For ease of reference, I will reply on the discussion page. --Gavin Collins 16:50, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5