Wikipedia

User talk:Gavin.collins/Archive 8

< User talk:Gavin.collins
Latest comment: 15 years ago by Gavin.collins in topic Accountancy task force
Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11

Shadzar

Latest comment: 15 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion

Hello Gavin.

I thought I would inform you that recent discussion on the WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons talk page, which was caused by your edits, resulted in Shadzar, a member of the project, removing his name from the list of participants. I do not blame you; you were not a part of the discussion, but I thought that it was worth notifying you since you might wish to comment on the discussion.

Once again, I am not blaming you for his leaving because, although your tagging did indirectly cause it, it was the words of another editor that I think pushed Shadzar to the tipping point.

-Drilnoth (talk) 20:32, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Ansalon

Latest comment: 15 years ago30 comments5 people in discussion

  Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Ansalon. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. shadzar-talk 22:58, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

  • In what sense is this edit unconstructive? There is no evidence that the topic notable, its style is over reliant on an in universe perspective and the article provides no context. I would have thought that the cleanup templates I placed on this article where wholly appropriate. --Gavin Collins (talk) 00:31, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
  • You were asked in March 2008 on the talk page to identify problems, and failed to do so for this many months, and then proceeded to add the tag again, with no explanation. This is what is unconstructive about just adding the tags without discussing the reason for adding them to an articles talk page so that other editors may know what you precise problems with the article that caused you to feel the need for the tag. Without such discussion the tagging of an article is not constructive as it serves no purpose to help other editors improve the article, or your reasons for including such a tag. With inclusion of discussion on an articles talk page when an article is tagged, thee is greater chance that editors will understand why the article was tagged, and what needs to be done to each individual article to resolve the problems within them. Otherwise without such discussion, other editors are left but with trying to read your mind and guess what actual problems you see in the article and guess further still how to fix them, and guess when the time has come for the tags removal through consensus that the tags issues have been resolved. shadzar-talk 00:52, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Third Party - No Mr. Collins, the reason is not given in the cleanup template. The template provides the type of fault, the exact fault must be given on the talk page for any real hope of correction. If you wish to continue across-the-board blind templating, please provide reliable reasons on the talk page. Many users are beginning to feel like you do not read the article and actually don't have a specific problem on each page. To both prove them wrong and to actually help the wikipedia project, it should be no problem to provide exact reasons on the talk page of each article you tag. Thank you in advance for your cooperation. Hooper (talk) 14:58, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Quote for context: "Many users are beginning to feel like you do not read the article and actually don't have a specific problem on each page."
  • As an example, you made the following three edits within a 1-minute period of time: [2], [3], [4]. -Drilnoth (talk) 15:22, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
  • It is not irrelevant. If you do not read the articles in question you should not be tagging them. I tab browse too. Are you saying you keep multiple windows up, read each article, then go back to each tab and tag them all at the same time? If so how do you know you are correctly tagging from memory? It is very much so not irrelevant. Provide valid reasons for a tag you place, as most editors do, and we'll be more than glad to assist you in any way possible. We all want the same end here. Hooper (talk) 16:00, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
  • The articles are being cleaned. If you have an issue, let us know. A non-descriptive tag doesn't assist anyone in editting. We will restore templates when you begin properly tagging and providing talk page reasons for said tags. Until then, it seems like this is just a general agree-to-disagree moment. Hooper (talk) 16:10, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
  • I look forward to seeing your improvements shortly. In the meantime, I shall be greatful if you would restore the cleanup templates until after you have done your work. If you have no intention of improving this article, then restore the cleanup template so that other editors will be alterted to these issues.--Gavin Collins (talk) 16:18, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Many of the articles in question appear cleaned already to the majority of us, which is why we are asking you to provide your examples of problems. Some notability tags make sense (i.e. articles that have yet to have any references placed) and as such I will not touch. However, articles such as Dan Willis (used as an example) are fine for everyone else, and it is requested that you provide reasoning (exact wording in article or issues, not just a broad statement) or tags will be reverted by everyone else as we won't be able to find any alledged problem. Help us help you. Hooper (talk) 16:21, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Three sources have already been added. I'll look for more later today; it's difficult to search through all of the stores, fansites, and Wikipedia mirrors to find actual references. -Drilnoth (talk) 16:45, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Dragonlance Nexus is considered reliable in the D&D/WotC community. It has been around for many, many years, and has become considered a reliable source for information regarding Dragonlance topics. Just because a site is maintained by fans doesn't mean it is automatically unreliable. If the site has a proven track record for accurate information, it is just as reliable (and in somecases, more reliable) than any other given site discussing the same topic. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:44, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
So then its reliable. Reliable: Capable of being relied on; dependable. In wikipedia's case this means "Can this site be relied to have valid information on the subject?" Yes, The site in question is perfect for said need. There is a difference between a fan-fluff site (i.e. wowinsider.com) and a fan-made informational site (i.e. wowwiki). Hooper (talk) 17:54, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Also, nothing in RS speaks of Fansites (atleast that I can find). Yes, I agree some degree of appropriateness on an editor's behalf is necessary, but the site used is valid. Hooper (talk) 18:13, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
That is a good point. -Drilnoth (talk) 18:56, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
I've added more refs. -Drilnoth (talk) 19:33, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree with you on that point. Your edits are "disruptive" but do not constitute "vandalism." -Drilnoth (talk) 13:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  • There is no accusation you are a vandal. edits appear to constitute vandalism does not claim that it is, and the next level warning that mentioned disruptive editing was even harsher toned indication a block of the user may be warranted. That was not the intent to threaten anyone with being blocked, but the warnings are all a bit funny worded to find a proper one for certain things. The edit appeared to constitute vandalism, even accidental, because of the reason that have been expressed within this section of your talk page. I am glad you have finally added some discussion to the article talk page where every editor can find it, and 90% of this discussion belongs there as well for editors to know what is going on with the article. It seems the warning message has in part served its purpose to let you know of the intent of other editors to communicate with you on the articles talk page after 8 months of waiting. So after declining to participate in the Ansalon talkpage for that duration and then again placing a tag on it without even looking to the talk page that requests discussion from you on the tag, can you not see how ading the tag back after all this time may appear to be vandalism in a way, or at least and unconstructive edit to add the tag without talking about the issues of that tag, which was why the warning was included because the others were either wrong context in them, or too abrasive calling for you to be blocked. Since there is now understanding of why the edit is seen as unconstructive after you have now started participating in the article's discussion on its own talk page, I think the warning succeeded in its intent to point out a potential problem and help to rectify it for all parties involved. Now we can all participate on the Ansalon talkpage in the hopes of making it a better article which hopefully was your initial attempt and reason for taggin the article with a cleanup template. shadzar-talk 03:54, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Your thinking seems very mixed up to me. Your remove the cleanup template, then issue a waring to me that the addition of the template "appears to constitute vandalism", and now you are suggesting that this warning was given to alerted me to the need to improve this article. I never heard such a load of nonsense! --Gavin Collins (talk) 08:42, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Bruenor Battlehammer

Latest comment: 15 years ago11 comments3 people in discussion

  Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Bruenor Battlehammer. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. shadzar-talk 23:09, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

  • In what sense is [5] unconstructive? There is no evidence that the topic notable, its style is over reliant on an in universe perspective and the article provides no context. I would have thought that the cleanup templates I placed on this article where wholly appropriate.
  • This article includes 3 references to independent/secondary sources. While here you added something to the talk page to indicate what problems you saw with the article, you for some reason are not acknowledging the secondary sources as secondary sources, and the notability tag is unneeded as the providing of secondary sources illustrates that there is notability of the articles subject. Could you offer reasons why the provided sources are not good enough on the articles talk page to help other editors actually improve the article rather than be left to guess what you specifically find failing notability under the guideline in which the article was tagged? shadzar-talk 00:57, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
  • For your information, the sources don't have anything to do with the subject of the article. Please restore the cleanup templates.--Gavin Collins (talk) 08:41, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
  • The three sources cited are trivial in nature, and don't provide any evidence of notability for the character.
  1. The citation from To Be Continued: An Annotated Guide to Sequels[6] does not support the statement "The character first appears in the Icewind Dale trilogy by author R. A. Salvatore". This statement is a classic example of synthesis;
  2. The citation from Magill's Guide to Science Fiction and Fantasy Literature repeats the in universe content to the novel itself by stating "Bruenor is the adoptive father of Catti-brie and Wulfgar, King of Mithral Hall, friend to Drizzt". This citation provides has no real-world context, analysis or criticism about the fictional character;
  3. The citation from Dragonlore: From the Archives of the Grey School of Wizardry has the same problem: it is all in universe, e.g. "During their efforts to regain this lost dwarven stronghold, Bruenor slays the shadow dragon Shimmergloom"
It is not clear to me why you consider my edits to be vandalism, nor why the {{notability}} template has been removed from the article, as it appears that you are mistaken that the "notability tag is unneeded". --Gavin Collins (talk) 12:08, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Those problems would seem to indicate an over-reliance on in-universe text, not on the notability of the character. Notability does not require real-world context; it requires that the topic is discussed. All three sources discuss Bruenor Battlehammer, even if they aren't describing him in the real world. Therefore, I'd say that an {{in-universe}} tag is warranted, but not {{notability}}. -Drilnoth (talk) 14:02, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Please direct me to the part of WP:N that says that; I'm not seeing it. To quote the nutshell version: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." Does that have anything to do with whether or not the Reliable Secondary Sources provide in-universe or real world content? -Drilnoth (talk) 22:34, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
  • The entire "Significant coverage" section of WP:N reads as follows: ""Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive." It mentions non-trivial, and the sources in Bruenor Battlehammer are not trivial, being published books, and it doesn't say anything about it needing to be "real world" coverage. -Drilnoth (talk) 23:16, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
  • First of all, source (1) is synthesis, which is a type of original research, so we can ignore this citation, because the source does not support the statement which claims to originate from. Sources (2) and (3) are in universe, i.e. they are regurgitations of the primary source material, and are therefore trivial in nature. It makes no difference if the source is a book or not, as this has no bearing on the quality of the source what so ever. Until such time as real-world content sourced from reliable secondary sources is added to this article, notability has not been demonstrated. If you doubt my views on this, I recomend you take this issue to the Wikipedia:Fiction/Noticeboard in the first instance to get a second opinion. Unless you are actually adding reliable secondary sources to this and other articles with the notability template, I would be greatful if you would refrain from removing the template, which has been put there to alert other editors of this issue. For this reason, I have restored the {{notability}} cleanup template in case you missed my earlier request (above) to restore it.--Gavin Collins (talk) 09:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Please stop.

Latest comment: 15 years ago9 comments2 people in discussion

You've been tagging articles like this for a year. The WikiProject is now aware of the issue and has started work on fixing it. It is a waste of energy for both you and us to continue like this; you've made your point, and we will be working on it. I really don;t want to start an AN/I or an ArbCom, but that looks like this whole debacle could be headed in that direction, and I don't think anyone wants to see that. -Drilnoth (talk) 17:20, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

  • Yes; the templates were warrented. But now I think that you could be doing much more constructive things on Wikipedia; you don't need to tag every article because, now that the project understands the situation, we can clean up the articles even if they don't have tags on them. -Drilnoth (talk) 14:04, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
  • That was in no way an endorsement. All along in this process I have, in many ways, agreed with you that the articles need vast amounts of work. What I do not agree with is the method by which you are going about it, your accusals of COI, bad faith, and vandalism, and your steadfast defense of articles like Hillsfar even once notability has clearly been established. -Drilnoth (talk) 13:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I think it is an endorsement. No sources were added to the article Hillsfar until I placed a cleanup template on the article. Now that they have been added, I think even you would have to admit that this approach works, even if you don't agree with this approach.--Gavin Collins (talk) 13:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I think that the approach works, but that does not mean that I think there isn't a better approach. I think that a one-article-at-a-time focus, like I have mentioned in more detail below, would work better and would make Wikipedia a much friendlier place for all of us. --Drilnoth (Talk) 14:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  • If you are annoyed or upset by my edits, just ignore them, rather than reverting them without justification. This would make matters easier for the both of us.--Gavin Collins (talk) 09:58, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Please note that, recently, I haven't been reverting all of your edits. I do revert those which I think aren't right, but quite a few of the articles that you tag to deserve to be tagged. At this point, I'm only removing the tags that I don't think are applicable. As a side note, as you're going through the articles, could you maybe start using {{articleissues}}? It would help condense all of the tags a bit more. Thanks! -Drilnoth (talk) 13:31, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Hillsfar

Latest comment: 15 years ago17 comments4 people in discussion

Hello Gavin. First off, thank you for starting to use the {{importance}} tag in some of your recent edits on RPG-related articles -- I'm glad to see that you're willing to work with some of the suggestions made by your fellow editors. However, I did have a question. With regards to your recent addition of the {{notability}} template of the article on the video game Hillsfar,[7] did attempt to determine the notability of the subject before adding that clean-up tag? Or did you only check the Wikipedia article for references? If you only checked the article, then I feel that I should inform you that you should look outside of Wikipedia before adding the {{notability}} template. As you can see, I have added four references for reviews from reliable third-party sources to the article, satisfying the general notability guidelines (the game having received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject). The {{unreferenced}} tag was added correctly, and the appropriate additional tag would have been {{importance}} in this case, not {{notability}}. Wouldn't you agree?

I've been reviewing your user contributions, and I can see that you've done well to identify many non-notable topics in your review of RPG-related articles, but I would caution you to make sure the subjects of the reviewed articles are actually non-notable (using resources separate from the articles themselves such as Google, or your local library) before adding the {{notability}} template. Again, I want to honestly thank you for your work on these articles, and I hope that we can work together in the future to help build a better encyclopedia. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 11:32, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

  • No Gavin, the {{notability}} template was not justified, because the subject of the article was notable. I'm not sure if you're being deliberately obtuse, of if you're legitimately unaware, in which case I would recommend you re-read WP:IDHT. A Wikipedia is not required to provide evidence of notability for the topic to be notable. Please re-read the notability guidelines -- it's in the last sentence of the very first paragraph. I understand that this may be a difficult concept for you to understand, because you've been using the same justification for your additions of the {{notability}} tag for more than a year now, but this is how the policy is written. In fact, you should never use any Wikipedia article to determine notability, but anyone can determine notability (as I mentioned, using Google, or the library). I'm honestly trying to help you here, because at least one established administrator has stated that there may be a legitimate ArbCom case against you.[9] If you show some willingness to work with the community, and listen to consensus, then things might go better for you should a case be made against you. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 20:24, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Okay, I give up. I've made my attempt to resolve this issue with you directly. It does not appear that you bothered to read my post, since your reply does not address any of the points I brought up...rather, it seems to be a standard reply[10][11][12][13][14] that you give whenever one of your notability edits is challenged. Please re-read my earlier post and, if you could, respond to the points I made regarding the requirement of reliable sources or evidence of notability in a Wikipedia article. It leads me to believe that you are deliberately misinterpreting the policy. This isn't just a difference of opinion, Gavin. You're gaming the system by applying policy inappropriately, and you are refusing to get the point. Those are the first two tenets of the behavioral guideline: Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. As previous attempts at dispute resolution have failed to modify your behavior [15][16], you leave us little choice but to pursue an ArbCom ruling. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 00:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Quote:"you leave us little choice but to pursue an ArbCom ruling". And if the AN/I doesn't get any useful response before its archived, that will unfortunately be the next step that will be taken. I really don't want that to happen; I don't want to be involved in ArbCom any more than you do, Gavin, but that'll have to be the next step if you don't stop, or at least try to be a little more reasonable. -Drilnoth (talk) 00:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  • A second RFC or even RFM might be a more proper next step, although the previous ones did precious little to change things. ArcCom would be our last resort, when all other options of dispute resolution have been exhausted, but it's certainly not out of the question depending on what way things progress. BOZ (talk) 01:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Honestly, I feel like this dispute has gone on long enough. It's been over a year of tendentious edits, with precious little behavioral modification in spite of multiple steps down the dispute resolution ladder. Gavin is still adding the notability template to notable D&D articles. I don't know how else to solve this when typical methods of dispute resolution are met with nonsense straw man responses like this: [17]. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 02:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Let's see where the current AN/I goes, and I'd like to WP:AGF that Gavin would take a second RFC to heart rather that write off any opinions given there that he doesn't agree with. BOZ (talk) 03:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

-removed indent-This discussion has gotten to the point that it is just another discussion about Gavin, and it probably shouldn't be continued on his own talk page. I'll create a section at WT:D&D shortly regarding a possible WP:RFC/U, and this discussion should probably be continued there. -Drilnoth (talk) 03:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

  • In answer to Drilnoth's post of 22:36, 30 November 2008, I was not aware that new sources had been added to the article when I posted my response of 22:12, 30 November 2008. I see that new sources have been added, and in my view there is good reason to believe that evidence that topic is notable has been added after I first placed the cleanup template on this article. However, the citations are problematical, in the sense that they quote the a magazine second hand (i.e. we are reading a transcription of the source, rather than the source itself), so the sources may be Questionable sources. I have therefore refered the matter for a second opinion at Wikipedia:Fiction/Noticeboard#Hillsfar.
    On a personal note, I don't think you can infere that my views are based on a "refusal to reach consensus, accusals of vandalism and COI, unyielding defense of every tag even once the problem has been fixed", but rather of a possible mistake. However, what is clear to me is that the accusation of vandalism at the begining of this section is not supported by any evidence, and I would request that this accusation be withdrawn. I feel this is a reasonable request. --Gavin Collins (talk) 09:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree that your edits are not vandalism. However, here's how I can infer about your views on consensus, vandalism, COI, and unyielding defense of every tag:

Vandalism: [18]
COI: [19]
"Hiding something": [20]
Defense of every tag: [21]
These are just some examples. If you wish, I can find more. -Drilnoth (talk) 13:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Consensus, vandalism, COI, and unyielding defense of every tag

Latest comment: 15 years ago15 comments4 people in discussion

In response to Drilnoth, I don't agree with your accusations:

  1. Vandalism: You have probably read my views about this already - see User_talk:Gavin.collins/Archive_7#AIV;
  2. COI: I see no accusation of COI at Talk:Dan Willis (author)#Notabillity disputed. What I do see is requests for information about why a discussion about a notability dispute was being archived, and why a new promotional photograph suddenly appeared on the article page. No attack was made against any individual or group of editors and none was intended;
  3. "Hiding something": I think it a bit odd that the discussion at Talk:Dan Willis (author)#Notabillity disputed should be archived. I have never seen a one topic discussion archived before;
  4. Defense of every tag: I am not sure what you are trying to prove with this point, but I would refer you to the discussion page at Talk:World of Greyhawk Fantasy Game Setting for more context.

I don't think these vague, generalised accusations of so called "wrong-doings" made out of context are constructive, and I think you have to focus on your own work rather than me. --Gavin Collins (talk) 13:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

So... I guess that you want me to find more examples? -Drilnoth (talk) 13:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I think our disagreements are content based, and I think you will find what is missing from your complaints is that the underlying content disputes that have given rise to strong views being expressed which has given rise to an assumptions of bad faith on all sides. I can see why you are upset by my robust defense of the cleanup temples, but this could have happened with any editor, and to be honest it would be a lot better if the content of these articles was of a higher quality so there would not be any dispute regarding notability at all.
    If you feel slighted in any way, I am happy to discuss personal issues with you on a one to one basis on our respective talk pages, and if I have written anything that has caused you personal offence, then I applolgise wholeheartedly now.
    Going forward, I would ask that our discussions are honest and also take into account how your editing behaviours that gave rise to our disagreement appears from my perspective, not just to yours. --Gavin Collins (talk) 14:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree with you that that sort of view when going forward would be good. However, I think that it will take strong commitment on both sides for us to try and figure this whole thing out. Let's try and figure something out. Why don't, instead of the mass tagging of articles, you focus on one article at a time and try to help find references and rewrite it to make it better? Then yourself and the WikiProject could work together to go through the articles to either improve or merge them as needed, rather than having this mass-scale dispute. How does that sound?
    And thank you very much for your apology. I did find your possible accusation of my conflict of interest regarding Dan Willis to be rather uncalled for, but I accept your apology regarding it. Now we can hopefully put that behind us. --Drilnoth (Talk) 14:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I am not aware of any editor who has worked on the article Dan Willis to have a conflict of interest, but I am allowed to ask questions. As regards the tagging of articles, it is not the tags that are the problem, but the low-quality content of the articles that I have tagged for cleanup that is the problem. You yourself have added lots of cleanup templates to articles, so you know that they have benefit. --Gavin Collins (talk) 14:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  • In regards to the COI: It is perfectly valid for you to ask questions. However, it was the manner in which you asked it (to quote from User talk:Gavin.collins/Archive 7#Dan Willis, again: "Please disclose the nature of your connection with Dan Willis.") which I perceived of as being unnecessary (although you said that to User:Nihonjoe, I get the feeling that it was also partially directed at me because you also asked, in a nicer way, at Talk:Dan Willis (author) about what COI I might have had). Regardless, I think that we can let that specific point lie. It's done.
    In regards to the tags: Your statement is accurate and will not be disputed. However, even when I am tagging articles I first take a brief look and see if I can improve them first. That's the thing: If you'd look for sources, work on the prose and in-universe material, etc., there wouldn't be nearly as much of a dispute. Then, if you can't fix something up, that is when you add the tags. -Drilnoth (talk) 14:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Quick Question: How in the world if the current photo on the Dan Willis article a "promotional photograph"? I'm really just floored by this statement and am honestly asking this question. Hooper (talk) 17:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I think that Gavin's referring to its professional quality; it is unlikely that someone who just happened to meet Willis at a convention something took that picture. Additionally, the person who uploaded the new image has made almost no edits other than to upload the image and add it to the article. -Drilnoth (talk) 17:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  • This is speculation on my part. Have a look at the image here and you will see it is the same as the article. The image also looks "professional" because the colouring is unusual (sepia) and the backround looks like it was staged, or the depth of field is very sharp - not a technique used by your average photographer. If you compare it with the more recent photo, it is not so slick. My guess is the photo current in the article is an older publicity shot, but I have no evidence.--Gavin Collins (talk) 18:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Now that makes a bit more sense to me. When you said Promotional I (coming from the marketing world) thought "how does this picture promote a sale of any product" but it makes sense now. Thanks. Hooper (talk) 19:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
So it is based on synthesis that the image is "promotional"? shadzar-talk 19:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I think that Shadzar was referring to how you used multiple sources to come to the unpublished conclusion that the image was promotional. It's a moot point now, anyway, because the image in question has been deleted from Commons for being a copyvio. -Drilnoth (talk) 14:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  • The view that the photo is promotional is my own real-world view as in the real-world, I can use multiple sources to form my own conclusion. It is only when I contribute to a Wikipedia article that synthesis is disallowed. --Gavin Collins (talk) 15:15, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

AN/I Notice

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello, Gavin.collins. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding the dispute between the Dungeons & Dragons WikiProject and Gavin.collins. Thank you. --Drilnoth (talk) 14:37, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Races of Stone

Latest comment: 15 years ago14 comments2 people in discussion

Gavin, you really should try looking for sources sometimes. You just went through and tagged Races of Stone with {{notability}} (it already had {{importance}}, but that's a different discussion), and within 10 minutes of your tagging it I found a reliable secondary source and added it to the article, with more to come shortly. I don't think that the WikiProject would be having such an issue with your edits if you'd try doing some of the harder work yourself. -Drilnoth (talk) 15:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

  • not, it's not. Read the documentation of {{notability}}. Sometimes the Notability tag is appropriate for the articles you tag but, if an topic is probably notable but the article does not indicate that, then {{importance}} should be used. Obviously, the topic was notable, so {{notability}} should never have been added. -Drilnoth (talk) 15:25, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  • None of the sources are reliable or non-trivial except perhaps the one from from d20zines. However, this source is being used to create a synthesis; no where in the review does it say that the book "provides cultural information for these races, as well as subraces and racial substitution levels, which have been praised". --Gavin Collins (talk) 16:07, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  • An award nomination is non-trivial and reliable, and the review is not being used for synthesis. The review is being used to cite the quotation, but not necessarily the earlier statements in that sentence. -Drilnoth (talk) 17:15, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  • The award in question is very minor, so a nomination does not impart any notability of any kind."The review is being used to cite the quotation, but not necessarily the earlier statements in that sentence" confirms it as 24-carat synthesis. --Gavin Collins (talk) 17:31, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

-removed indent-Even if it isn't a major award, it was given out for 20 full years. As to the synthesis, anyone could make a minor rewrite to put the quote in its own sentence, which I will do momentarily. -Drilnoth (talk) 17:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I've added 2 more reliable secondary sources. -Drilnoth (talk) 17:59, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

RFC/U

Latest comment: 15 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

I have reverted the additions which you made to the draft of the RFC/U, because the draft is not yet complete and because it is not yet an official RFC/U. Here is a copy of what you wrote if you want to use it when the RFC/U actually starts.

Articles on Wikipedia are open to contributions from an editor who wishes to make a constructive improvements to its articles, including the addition of cleanup templates. Whilst need for cleanup may be disputed, that is not a reason for discouraging the cleanup process but refering to as "disruptive", when in fact is beneficial and productive. This editor has challenged the notability and content quality of many articles, but in doing so he provides a useful stimulus to article improvement. The motivation of this RFC seems to be based on the partisan view that articles should not be challenged by editors who are not the article "owners". I say that nonone owns any article on Wikipedia, each of which are open to reasonable challenge (errors and exceptions permitting).

-Drilnoth (talk) 22:41, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

  • I never said that. I hope that you can contribute to the RFC/U to help come to some sort of consensus, and fully support your right to respond to the RFC/U. However, I think that it is inappropriate for you to add a response to the RFC/U before it is officially filed, and before the initial statement is even finished. If you wish to work on designing a response before the RFC/U is officially filed, feel free to do so in your userspace. -Drilnoth (talk) 22:47, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
  • You do get to say something in your defense - after the RFC is filed. That's what an RFC is; you pose a problem/question/whatever to the open Wikipedia community, and request for them to comment. An RFC/U is the same as an article RFC in spirit, although specifically geared for commenting on an editor; the complaining editors make their statement, the editor(s) in question get to reply with their own statement, and then other editors can come along and make their own statements and/or endorse one or more of the statements previously given. At least, that's how I understand it. BOZ (talk) 02:06, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

A request

Latest comment: 15 years ago28 comments4 people in discussion

Hi, Gavin. I understand why you are adding {{notability}} to articles, even if I don't agree with it, but when you do would you please check and see if {{importance}} was already on the articles, and remove the later tag? It seems rather redundant to have both tags on the article at once. Thanks! -Drilnoth (talk) 23:14, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

What is more redundant is to add it when both {{importance}} and {{primarysources}} is on the article. shadzar-talk 00:40, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Indeed; those two together say exactly the same thing (except for that nasty deletion part, eewwww). BOZ (talk) 01:20, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
  • All of them. Both tags address the concern of notability, and if there is already the importance tag on an article, then notability is an issue that is already marked for cleanup. There is no need to add the notability tag when importance already exists on an article. shadzar-talk 09:28, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
It has been explained to you on more than one occasion why both tags do not need to be on any article at the same time. Your calling ir "generalizations" does not counter the fact that it goes for all articles on wikipedia. View some of the article you have tagged through your user contributions and notice how they end up with two tags both citing "notability" as an issue with the articles. shadzar-talk 09:42, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I am still not able to identify the source your complaint unless you tell me which articles you are refering to. Can you let me know what exactly which articles your are refering to? --Gavin Collins (talk) 09:57, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
If you cannot find the source of the complaint then reread the first message in this thread. It is explained several times in this entire section. shadzar-talk 10:11, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

~undent~ All articles. See WP:Tag bombing, Wikipedia:OVERTAGGING, Tag Consolidation. shadzar-talk 10:24, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Start with reading this WP:RESPTAG. There is no attempt at generalization, but an attempt to explain things to you that you either do not, cannot, or refuse to understand what people are trying to tell you. If you read any of these (see previous undented reply) essays it may help explain what is being discussed here. shadzar-talk 10:41, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Starthere and work through that list. Those are the specific articles in question. shadzar-talk 10:49, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
And there have been others within the last few weeks, if you need more examples. BOZ (talk) 16:28, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
  • The notability template is correct for these two articles. It will be difficult if not impossible to prove that these two topics to be notable at all. In my view, the importance template understates the issue: these two articles are prime candidates for merger or deletion, as finding reliable secondary sources that provide non-trivial real-world content is likely to prove to be imposssible. --Gavin Collins (talk) 16:33, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Sounds good. Now, give me some time; five days to a week should certainly be enough, although I may need more. Depends on if I have to go the library to find books that I don't own, wade through all of the messageboards and Wikipedia mirrors on Google, etc. -Drilnoth (talk) 17:52, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Also, I'd appreciate it if you didn't comment on my progress while I'm finding sources until I notify you that I'm done. Thanks! -Drilnoth (talk) 17:58, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

 It seems that finding sources was easier than I thought; why don't you take a look. I know that the publication history section needs to be expanded, but that doesn't have anything to do with article notability. If you think that it still doesn't pass your requirements, I'll look for more. -Drilnoth (talk) 20:48, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

An RFC/U has been filed regarding you

Latest comment: 15 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion

Hello, Gavin.collins. I am informing you that a request for comment on user conduct which involves you has been filed. You can see the RFC/U here. Thank you. -Drilnoth (talk) 21:46, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

  • The motivation of this RFC seems to be based on the partisan view that Dungeons & Dragons articles are not subject to the policies and guidlines that apply to all Wikipedia articles, and as such should not be open to reasonable challenge (errors and exceptions permitting). In truth, all articles on Wikipedia are open to challenge from any editor who wishes to make a constructive improvements to its articles, including the addition of cleanup templates. Whilst need for cleanup may be disputed, that is not a reason for discouraging the cleanup process not to refering to editors who add cleanup templates as "disruptive", when in fact their contribution is beneficial and productive. This editor has challenged the notability and content quality of many articles, but in doing so he provides a useful stimulus to article improvement. --Gavin Collins (talk) 09:13, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
It is a shame that you decline to participate, as I feel you have mischaracterized our intentions and goals, and there has seen some very sensible commentary from neutral, uninvolved editors. The community will discuss the situation and will hopefully come to some kind of reasonable resolution, but I think it would help for you to at least state your position for all commenting to see. Participation is not mandatory, and either way I will respect your choice. BOZ (talk) 18:36, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

D&D Barnstar award

Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
  A D&D Barnstar
for great justice and epic lulz.
Jack Merridew 13:58, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

A solution from collaboration, for collaboration

Latest comment: 15 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

-removed indent-There is now a new proposal at the RFC page, and your input is requested. Thank you. -Drilnoth (talk) 23:04, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

  • I won't be subscribing to the proposal A solution from collaboration, for collaboration, because its wording is very one sided. From it I get the distinct impression that (a) it assumes I am not doing these things already; (b) it fails to recognise that this is a two sided dispute, in which memebers of the D&D Wikiproject may also have also participated; and (c) all of the obligations to "do the right thing" are placed upon me, whilst members D&D Wikiproject are allowed to remove cleanup templates for what ever reason they like.
    In my view, I think removing the cleanup templates without reasonable justification is the real issue behind the dispute, an activity which members of the D&D Wikiproject do as if some low quality articles don't need them at all[23]. The statement that Gavin "must add a comment explaining the rationale for every tag on the respective article's talk page or the tag may be removed without further discussion" seems to me to be an excuse for removing cleanup templates, even if it is glaringly obvious they are needed. Remember that in the discussions leading Kender RFM, there were many instances of cleanup templates being removed without good reason, or for reasons that turned out to be spurious. As far as I am concerned, it ended only when the issues that the cleanup templates identified were addressed, and their removal justified.
    I am happy to subscribe with the proposal Possible way forward by Casliber, as at least it is neutral in tone, it involves both parties to the dipute but implicates neither in any wrong doing, and the obligations which it sets out are fairly evenly distributed and do not provide a free pass for any disfunctional behaviour. --Gavin Collins (talk) 00:07, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Sorry Drilnoth, I know you are well-intentioned. From where I am looking, my view is that on a quite significant level, Gavin's and the D&D crew (and mine FWIW as I am an inclusionist at heart) are so fundamentally different that it makes collaboration near-impossible. What I am hoping by a three month layoff is that a significant proportion of D&D material is better sourced, or that which is unable to be is prudently merged or whatever, and that les of everyone's already limited time is wasted. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:17, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

Pixelface (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

RFC/U - moving forward

Latest comment: 15 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

Regarding the outcome of the RfC, the administrator Protonk has recently said the following [24]: "The best outcome would be to convince Gavin to agree to Random's proposal or to craft a compromise close to Random's. Failing that, if we show overwhelming community consensus for randoms proposal we can still tell gavin that these are basically the expectations. Should the behavior escalate or continue then the next step in DR is Arbcom. Because that is an unpleasant result, my hope is for a tacit (or preferably explicit) agreement from gavin as to the basis of the dispute and the desired outcome." Followed by [25]: "If gavin refuses to agree to Random's summary (and random is a pretty fair guy), then we have only two (basically) options. We either find at the end of 30 days that Random's view has consensus and that Gavin is operating in defiance of this--therefore DR has been exhausted and we go to arbcom. Or we sit down and find something between Random's suggestion and Gavin's suggestion."

Casliber's proposal has failed to gain consensus, and being left with ArbCom as the only remaining form of dispute resolution is less than ideal, so I am interested to know in what ways Randomran's proposal can be amended to be more fair to you, in your view. As you have stated that you feel this proposal assumes you are not doing these things already and that it fails to recognize that this is a two sided dispute, in which members of the D&D Wikiproject may also have also participated, I will make a statement to clarify that the "Work positively" and "Accountability" sections shall apply equally to all editors involved in a dispute. To begin to answer your view that all of the obligations to "do the right thing" are placed upon you, while members D&D Wikiproject are allowed to remove cleanup templates for what ever reason they like, I will change the line from "If a tag is removed by the community, instead of edit warring, Gavin should discuss the tag." to "If a tag is disputed, other editors are strongly encouraged to discuss the tag with Gavin before removing." I would be interested to hear what other changes, corrections, additions, or removals you would like to suggest to bring you closer to endorsing the proposal put forward by Randomran. I will discuss your response on the RfC talk page with other interested editors, and we will craft a compromise, and offer it to you to either endorse or not endorse as you wish. BOZ (talk) 20:55, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

  • To be honest, I find it a bit rich that you should make the statement "If a tag is disputed, other editors are strongly encouraged to discuss the tag with Gavin before removing". Yet in the past, you have removed cleanup templates without justification and in highly questionable circumstances, namely removing them before effecting a redirect[26][27]. The fact that this operation took place during the process of mediation, even now I find shocking and dysfuctional that you should engage in such a deliberate attempt to remove cleanup templates without justification and in such an underhand way - it is just beyond the Pale. I guess I have to assume good faith, but I will remain vigilant against such actions, which Randomran's proposal fails to address. I won't be changing my mind, as you have done[28]. I will be sticking with Casliber's proposal, for reasons given above. --Gavin Collins (talk) 22:55, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
As you wish. Thank you for your response. BOZ (talk) 23:41, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Past actions aside, is there anything you would like to see added to the proposal at hand? Is there a statement you'd like to add to the proposal, so that you're not marching into a tag dispute unarmed, where people can revert you without justification? I know you have a lot of doubts, but I hope you'll at least start there. Randomran (talk) 00:19, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
(sigh) we-ell. I feel like a turncoat now. :( Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:01, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry

Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Gavin, I've really backed off as far as I can. I've stopped arguing for any pretense of actual notability. I'm not asking for a detailed examination in multiple independent sources. I'm asking that people be able to show that one source, independent of the subject, has at least mentioned it, and then allowing the article to be filled with material from DVD commentaries, forwards, blogs, and other material that would never truly meet WP:RS. It truly disturbs me that this is a big problem, and I don't understand why people think they want to fill Wikipedia with things that have never been mentioned in independent sources at all.

I don't accept the "there will be sources in the future" argument for anything. Notability is based on the existence of sources, and we can't presume what the future will bring.—Kww(talk) 14:29, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I share your viewpoint, but I feel I can compromise becuase WP:FICT also requires substantial real-world coverage from reliable source. Would it not be fair to say that this provides 95% guarantee that articles on elements of fiction would be of good quality? Could you not agree to compromise if the quality thresholds are met, if not the need for external recognition. --Gavin Collins (talk) 15:24, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm not willing to support a guideline that labels itself a "compromise" that isn't actually a compromise. I don't see that the inclusionist position on sourcing is shifting at all. I think the refusal to compromise speaks to underlying motives.—Kww(talk) 15:37, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
I think Masem and Phil have shifted a lot when the requirement that evidence that a fictional element has to be provided by reliable sources was added - they fought this tooth an nail, but seem to have accepted it. Prior to that, the second prong required no evidence at all. If we can keep them on board, then their support as well as yours would be useful if this version of WP:FICT went to RFC. --Gavin Collins (talk) 17:00, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Some help

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I'm starting to get a push off the ground on the comics WikiProject that I hope to have be a pilot program for a project-wide effort along similar lines. You can read about it here: [29].

If I get that off the ground, would you be willing to watchlist the improvement drive and help me out both explaining our policies to confused editors who have their pages tagged and in helping give pointers and advice on what sorts of things need changing?

My goal here is to give a longer deadline than AfD gives for improvement of bad sections of fiction articles, while still not making the indefinite keeping of crappy coverage an acceptable outcome. My hope is that articles will be improved without editors in the area being overwhelmed or under an unmanageable attack. Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:52, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Being cornered

Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

I'm not sure who's side you are taking with that comment. Clarification may be in order.—Kww(talk) 15:47, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I guess Phil Sandifer thinks he is being cornered so he starts a new thread[30]. It is annoying, as you remark, but an understandable reaction in way. I support your views on independent sourcing, but I am hoping you can come up with some form of compromise wording for WP:FICT. --Gavin Collins (talk) 15:57, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm happy enough with the wording of the references to WP:V and WP:RS. The last frontier is the notion (obvious to me) that articles that fail WP:V and WP:RS are at higher risk of deletion than those that pass them. Sepiroth BCR was reverted here, and my effort was removed here. I'm happy to hear suggestions.—Kww(talk) 16:20, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
I thought my proposal[31] solved all these issues at stroke; if supported, we could get rid of the section on independence altogether. Alternatively, Sepiroth last sentence does the trick on its own; again you could get rid of the rest of this section, which is mainly POV.--Gavin Collins (talk) 16:27, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Meeting the three pronged test...

Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

This change seems pretty innocuous. I can understand reverting it on the grounds that people shouldn't be making changes, but "changes the fundamental meaning of the guideline"? I think it's more a case of stating the obvious: if an obscure character from a long forgotten anime winds up with front page coverage on the New York Times and the Washington Post because she's the favorite character of one of the Obama children, that's going to meet WP:N in full. Once that happens, you can ignore everything in the guideline in terms of notability.—Kww(talk) 19:13, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I did not have time this evening to explain this change, but I do think the reverted version marks a very big movement away from the honest approach that has been apparent in the drafting of WP:FICT up to now. I have welcomed the movement to loosen the inclusion criteria on the basis that as long as this issue is approached in an honest fashion (i.e. full disclosure is made where WP:FICT differs or departs from other Wikipedia policies and guidelines), for which I acknowledge Phil Sanifer was the person resposible for setting this important precedent[32].
However, the changes made by Protonk unconciously go against this. The suggestion that "An element of a fictional work is presumed to be notable if it meets a three pronged test" is not actually true, as you have pointed out: independent sourcing is also needed. In my view, the three pronged test could be used to support the argument that a particular topic deserves its own standalone article, but this test falls short of the requirements of WP:GNG, so a presumption of notability is overstepping the mark.
I am not sure where your example fits into this picture. All I can say that if someone claimed a anime character is notable because it passes the three pronged test, I would say this is not the case because Kww made a clear arguement that "some completely independent mention of the item, no matter how brief, is necessary". --Gavin Collins (talk) 21:21, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
I honestly think you must be so tired of this thing that you are reading things backwards. Protonk inserted an "or". Basically, his change acknowledged something that is true: if a character meets the GNG, it's in. It doesn't really matter if neither of us would believe that it is central to understanding the work, or how important the work itself is ... if there is significant coverage of that character in reliable, third-party sources, it's notable. That was what my example was for: if that obscure item got front-page coverage, it'll pass WP:N itself, and no sub-guideline will stop it. Case in point: that episode of Pokemon that was accused of causing seizures in Japanese school-children because of the flashing animation. That episode would fail our second prong miserably ... it wasn't important to the Pokemon storyline at all. However, it was international front-page news for weeks, subjected the entire Japanese animation industry to attack by American journalists, and even had a class of epilepsy named after it. It passes WP:N by a mile, so Dennō Senshi Porygon gets an article of its own. I don't really think there's a way to prevent that, and I don't think there's a reason too, either.—Kww(talk) 21:37, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
The example article (Dennō Senshi Porygon) which you are refering was the subject of a scientific journal (Pediatrics International), so I agree it is a notable topic, or more correctly, notorious. However, if there were no reliable secondary sources cited in the article, then it would fail WP:N and WP:V, so even if it pass the three pronged test, it would not be notable (by which I mean it does not meet WP:GNG). Protonk insertion of an "or" would therefor not be appropriate in my book. --Gavin Collins (talk) 21:49, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Alternative to notability

Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hello! I am working on an objective alternate to notability in my userspace. Please read User:A Nobody/Inclusion guidelines and offer any suggestions on its talk page, which I will consider for revision purposes. If you do not do so, no worries, but if you wish to help, it is appreciated. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 01:56, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I have added a response on the talk page. --Gavin Collins (talk) 09:08, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Okay, thanks! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 19:03, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Smile!

Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
 

A NobodyMy talk 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, Go on smile! Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

people with rollback rights generaly dont joke like this. rdunnPLIB  15:38, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Indeed, I'm not known for joking. I just felt like being nice to everyone with whom I interact, i.e. just to spread some niceness around here. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 19:35, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Fiction notability

Latest comment: 15 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

I understand your distaste, but I really think we need to allow the importance to be asserted based on primary sources for character and episodes. This is primarily for pragmatic reasons. First, it's hard enough fighting off the whitelist crusaders, and your position isn't easy to view as a compromise. Second, I don't think it matches what was in the RFC.

I wish I had prevailed 18 months ago, when I tried to get "article is about an episode of a television show" turned into a CSD category. It still reflects my personal view. Covering a television show episode by episode is like covering a novel chapter by chapter, and there is no reason to have articles about television episodes. The only exceptions I would make would be along the line of the Pokemon episode that was accused of causing seizures.—Kww(talk) 16:47, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I am missing something. Give me an example of how a primary source can be used. My understanding is that plot summaries are the only coverage that can be written from them. Had you something else in mind? Please clarify. --Gavin Collins (talk) 16:50, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Basically it permits a well-reasoned argument from the work to be used to demonstrate importance. There's a difference between "We need an article on character x because he's really cool" and "We need an article on character x because his relationship with character y is an underlying motivation for the plot in episodes a, b, c, .... q". That's more than a bald assertion of WP:ILIKEIT. That's a reasoned statement that can be evaluated and possibly refuted. It isn't WP:OR, because WP:OR doesn't apply to article inclusion criteria. We are expected to use judgment when making those calls.—Kww(talk) 16:58, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
I see where you are coming from, but I disagree. A reasoned statement based on primary sources that can't be easily evaluated and refuted, because it is based on personal opinion which often differ but can be equally valid. This has been my arguement (and I think yours) all along - inclusion criteria based on personal opinion can't be verified objectively - you need a source other than Wikipedian's opinions to be used in guidelines.
We may have wires crossed here. In my view, real-world commentary from the author would be accpetable as evidence of importance for prong 2, as such commentary would be independent of the plot. Is that were the misunderstanding originates? --Gavin Collins (talk) 17:10, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
No, we don't have wires crossed. I'm making a statement that I personally disagree with because I think it represents a viable compromise. I've argued that there has to be some independent mention, but I haven't argued that the importance to the work has to be validated that way. Secondary sources are far, far better than primary, but, unlike Phil, I try to recognize when asking for another inch risks a mile of progress. I think demanding secondary source validation for episodes and characters represents extra inch. I don't think it does for less common items, and that's why I supported the second prong as originally written, and honestly believe the version I have offered up to represent only a simplification of language.—Kww(talk) 18:02, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Perhaps we are getting hung up over a requirement for sourcing (primary, secondary, teriary) when we could compromise on the second prong if it requires reliable sources as evidence of importance. For me this works, because that excludes the over-arching work of fiction itself, but could include commentary from the author. Combined with a requirement for commentary that is independent of the plot, I think this is a recipe for compromise. --Gavin Collins (talk) 08:52, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Notability (fiction)

Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I'll do my best to provide rational input to the discussion. As to any current signs of progress, I think you are a victim of wishful thinking.—Kww(talk) 19:19, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

In the last year, I have seen virtually every variation and permutation of the proposal to exempt fiction from WP:V put forward, all of which fall outside the orbit of Wikipedia existing policies and guidelines, but none have any intellectual basis what so ever. It is time to bring WP:FICT back home and make an honest guideline of her. --Gavin Collins (talk) 19:43, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
The dishonest guideline is WP:N, for it bases notability not on the subject, but on accidents of sourcing. DGG (talk) 09:53, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Canvassing

Latest comment: 15 years ago11 comments3 people in discussion

[33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], etc. Are you going to canvass the inclusionists as well? Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 19:34, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

No need, you have done that already at Wikipedia:Notability/RFC:Reevaluation, but your attempt to destroy Wikipedia inclusion criteria has failed.--Gavin Collins (talk) 19:39, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
I am somewhat baffled by the reply and reluctantly have started Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Gavin.collins_canvassing.3F. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 19:40, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
I doubt that you are either baffled or reluctant in reality, as comments on your talk page testify, as I am sure you clever enough to understand my comments and interpret them in any way you choose. --Gavin Collins (talk) 20:05, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Why not take the high ground and instead have replied to me by saying, "Oh, I am planning on contacting everyone who has participated in the discussion, but just have not yet gotten around to it"? Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 20:09, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Good joke! I guess it it is because I can't read your mind.--Gavin Collins (talk) 20:14, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
One need not be a telepath to realize a better response. And as I said above with regards to the smile I gave you in good faith last month which I hoped as a nice gesture to ease tensions among editors, I rarely joke here. And I am reluctant with ANI threads, because I would much rather time and effort be spent improving articles than anything else, but if the effort is to only solicit support from those who are likely to go after stuff subjectively declared to be "cruft" then that does not seem right. Imagine if I posted the same message you did on Pixelface, Ikip, etc. talk pages but with opposite wording. You know someone would come up with something. I really was hoping that this was just a case of contacting the deletionists first and that you would contact inclusionists next. After all, I give out smiles even to deletionists in the hopes of easing tensions among everyone. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 20:25, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
I think you need to be honest with yourself. The speed at which you posted a complaint at ANI is not a particualrly good indicator of reluctance - in fact it might be used evidence of the some other motivation. If everyone was as "reluctant" as you, ANI would be swamped with complaints. If you are annoyed with me in any way, do make your complaint clear, so we can discuss the issues on which we have different opinions. --Gavin Collins (talk) 20:48, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
If you want to get support for a compromise over inclusion criteria, then seek a broad consensus; asking only those who are likely to side with you to comment is biased and will cause people to regard such a guideline as they have in the past. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 20:54, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
As A Nobody said above, there is a thread going on about you on ANI. I'd appreciate your feedback at it. Themfromspace (talk) 04:03, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
In answer to Themformspace, think your comparision of A. Nobody's complaint with that filed against Ikip is an exaggeration, and I don't think your comments were helpful.--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 22:36, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Economics portal

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I saw you are the major contributor to the Econ Portal ! or maybe just to the selected feature article. I was going to suggest that Bernard Madoff be put up as the featured article in time for his presumed guilty pleas on Thursday, March 12. But it seems another Keynes article was chosen this month.

BTW, I saw these on Wikinews and was wondering whether they could be made to work on the portal? {{Crude Oil Prices}}

{{Stock Market data}}

Who actually runs the portal anyway?

Any help appreciated.

Smallbones (talk) 20:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I am not really a major contributor as the editor who usually runs the portal is Nishkid64. I have transcribed your post to his talkpage for his information. Madoff is indeed a good choice for featured article, which is why I added Charles Ponzi to the portal last month. Please feel free to make any changes that you wish. As regards the templates, maybe you could ask the editor who designed them for Wikinews if he might consider creating them for Wikipedia. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 22:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Your recent revert

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Can you please provide a more detailed explanation for why you made this revert? I would really like to know. WP:! was created for a reason and it was already discussed at RFD. Please see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 February 22#Wikipedia:¬ → Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Revision history of Wikipedia:!. -- IRP ☎ 20:15, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Surely. I have respond at WT:NOT. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:31, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Confusion

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

With this edit what you said was in agreement with the proposal, yet you marked it as oppose. Could you clarify? OrangeDog (talk • edits) 00:15, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I have clarified my position regarding the guideline. In my view, notability cannot be inherited/presumed/acknowledged in the absence of reliable secondary sources. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:17, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Your recent reverts

Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Whilst I appreciate you have every right to revert my edits [43][44][45], I would be grateful if you would care to discuss your own views at WT:NOT when you do, so all the editors contributing to the discussions can get some constructive feedback. I would prefer not to be reverted at all if possible - simply alter the text to reflect what you yourself would like to see, so your own views are made explicit, as I am sure you have an important contribution to make. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 16:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the note.
Please see my comments at User_talk:Hiding. - jc37 10:38, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Hiding[46] that you need to assert what your views are explicitly, as this is not clear what you are objecting to when you simply revert my edits.--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 10:57, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you!

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

See: User_talk:A_Man_In_Black#Wikipedia_talk:Notability_.28fiction.29.23Bring_back_the_history

Ikip (talk) 14:46, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Accountancy task force

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello, this message is being sent to you since you are a member of the Accountancy task force. This is just a heads-up that the task force has been expanded with new features and its main page modified. Now that the task force has assessed over 800 articles in its scope, a breakdown can be seen of the quality of articles. A new userbox can be added to your page, and if you know of a editor contributing to accounting articles, a welcoming template can be used to invite the editor to join the task force. If you haven't already, consider watchlisting the main discussion page. There is currently a discussion about adding a template to some main accounting topics that would benefit from input by other editors. Feel free to leave feedback on the discussion page for further improving these new features. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 07:31, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Most excellent work. Congratulations! I will respond to your message. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 07:33, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gavin.collins/Archive_8&oldid=1140599945"