Vote Cthulhu

Highly, highly recommended!

User:Jbmurray led his students in an extremely successful collaboration with Wikipedia, producing three featured articles and eight good articles. I therefore highly recommend you read his page User:Jbmurray/Advice about using WP in an academic setting. Aleta ^Sing 02:47, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for this. In the mean time, I'd love to see you, and others, help to constructively work towards the improvement of the new articles under the present project. Simply deleting them, as another editor is wont to do, is counter to the collaborative nature of Wikipedia, while boldly editing and revising is more in the progressive spirit that can make Wikipedia work.Vote Cthulhu (talk) 02:51, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

As to your willingness to help mentioned above, I am grateful for that. Note, however, that these articles are for the most part only days old. It is unreasonable to expect the writers of these new pages to be able to respond to criticisms and ask questions within the timeframe that "andy" has allowed before requesting deletions, and merging articles. I hope that the articles will be improved over the coming days, but in order for that to happen, they need to be available to edit. Moving or removing them simply leaves the students confused. Thanks again, Aleta, for your positive criticism.Vote Cthulhu (talk) 02:54, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

On using sandboxes

Most of this comment is copied from my reply to you at the Islam project. You seem to have a basic misconception that is easily corrected. Any number of editors can work on an article in a sandbox. I myself have collaborated with other editors working in my sandbox or theirs to get articles into shape before putting them out into mainspace. You could use your own userspace as a hub of sorts for your students to work on articles (and you can let other editors know as well and invite participation) until the articles are ready for moving into mainspace. You are displeased with nominations for deletion and merger; this would solve that problem (mostly, barring things like gross copyright violation) for at least the duration that the articles are in the sandbox/userspace. Aleta ^Sing 03:29, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

If this is the case, then I have indeed misunderstood the role of the sandbox. This is certainly something to consider in the future and would hopefully reduce the vigorous attempts to delete by zealous editors. Unfortunately, this is not something that is possible for the present project and so the articles that have been built will have to take their courses. I still believe that they can be fixed without simply deleting them and hope to see further constructive efforts in this regard. Thanks again for your input.Vote Cthulhu (talk) 03:41, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, no, we can move existing articles that need work from the mainspace into userspace. it is called userfication. If you would like to consider this for any or all of the articles in your students' projects, I'll be glad to assist in doing so. It might indeed be the best option for the ones most likely to be deleted otherwise. Aleta ^Sing 03:56, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, but the timeframe for the project is elapsing without time for using the sandbox as you've described. Students seem almost universally to prefer to wait until the last possible moment to complete assignments. Hopefully the students or other editors can make necessary changes to avoid deletion. In future, I will be sure to incorporate the sandbox more generally. Thank you once again for all your input and assistance.Vote Cthulhu (talk) 04:01, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Argh!!!! I'm trying to help here! It is a simple thing to userfy the articles, and I could move all of them in minutes. Aleta ^Sing 04:03, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I understand. The course is over as of this weekend, however. So, there is no point.Vote Cthulhu (talk) 04:10, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Sigh. Fine. I will say however, that it is frustrating to deal with someone who complains that people do not want to collaborate and help but that person seems to reject all help offered by either blanking it without response (as you did your talk page previously) or simple refusal (as now). Aleta ^Sing 04:14, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I am not being uncooperative here. The course ends this weekend. The students can no longer be assigned to do anything different than what they have already been assigned to do. I appreciate your offer of assistance. Expanded use of the sandbox is certainly something that will be employed in any future assignments. For the present project, however, this simply will not work. If there were more time left in the course with which to assign further work, the group sandbox userfying would be a great idea. As it is, most of the students have waited until the very last minute to bring their articles to life and will be editing them as they see fit over the weekend. If the articles do not meet standards, then so be it. I hope, however, that some of what they have done will have recognized merit and that others will continue to edit and improve them well after the course ends. My complaint has been that User:Andyjsmith has given the editors and creators of these articles NO time to finish their work. I thank you for your help.Vote Cthulhu (talk) 04:23, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

As you said, the students wait until the last minute, so any complaint about "not enough time allowed to finish" is their own fault assuming the assignment itself wasn't given at the last minute. That is, giving two more weeks wouldn't matter because the project is over and there's no way to go back in time and start earlier so that they could be fixed by the deadline. Note that there is near-consensus among many that there are many and serious problems here, not just the one editor you like to single out for some reason. DMacks (talk) 05:13, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I do not like to single anyone out. Rather User:Andyjsmith has seemingly singled me out. There are innumerable articles and stubs in Wikipedia that have serious problems, yet andy (and you as well - I have acknowledged that earlier) has decided to engage in attacks on pages relating to my recent project. The fact that the two of you insinuate that I may not be being honest, for instance, indicates that you've both taken a confrontational attitude rather than one of cooperation and community as is the spirit of Wikipedia. What I have been arguing from the outset here is that deleting and merging articles that remain under construction is bad form. Rather, these articles should be left alone in order for their creators and other editors to fix. The problems with the articles have not all been serious enough to warrant immediate deletion.Vote Cthulhu (talk) 14:21, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

• No, not all the articles warrant immediate deletion nor have they been immediately deleted. Several editors have fixed problems with them, myself included. Several editors other than myself have concluded that Islam and civil rights should be deleted. The reasons for all of this have been patiently explained to you by several editors (myself included) and we all say the same thing. Why do you suppose that is? Meanwhile, why won't you tell anyone the name of your university or school and the nature of the course? It's very odd that you won't say. andy (talk)

I am glad to see editors working to correct problems now rather than following your lead to try and have them all deleted. You did originally try to merge or delete almost all of these articles. The initial problem with Islam and civil rights, that it is pushing a particular agenda regarding women's rights, has been fixed so your initial case for its deletion is warrantless. You may have a case on other grounds, but that is not what has been "agreed" on the discussion as yet. I note that there remains the problem that Hinduism and Science is merged needlessly with Karma in Hinduism. That merge simply doesn't make any sense. Finally, I've already replied to your requests for identification; what is odd is that you repeatedly demand information that quite simply is none of your business.Vote Cthulhu (talk) 14:37, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

• Believe it or not wikipedia editors want to help. Me too. But I'm a very suspicious person because there are some very odd characters hanging around here who need to be kept an eye on. People who, for example, embark on campaigns of disruptive editing. So when I see someone such as yourself who has been told again and again and again that they're going about things the wrong way, and who has been offered help again and again and again but sticks doggedly to the same course of action - despite clear evidence that it's not working - I begin to wonder. As an individual editor you have the right to do what you wish, of course. But you say you're mentoring a group of students. Most of this talk page consists of comments from several editors suggesting far better ways to do it, but you don't seem to want to know. That, as I said, makes me suspicious. And then when I look at WP:SUP and see all the well-conducted student projects there, supported by the wikipedia community, I seriously wonder why you're behaving this way. So I asked a polite question as a sort of test and I find your response interesting if somewhat saddening. andy (talk) 14:53, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Civility warning

Consider this your formal warning to remain civil and discuss article substance rather than editors. Singling out one of many editors who are all telling you the same thing does not help your cause. You are way out of line on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taoism and death. Try de-escalating to get others to bother to listen to you, and remember that AfD is not a vote, so saying "keep" over and over again is just pointless. DMacks (talk) 20:07, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Cthulu, Please comment only on edits, not the editor. If you disagree with an opinion, give reasons why your view is correct; do not on what you think of the author of the other opinion. Aleta ^Sing 02:47, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

April 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to the page Bid‘ah has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. Oldlaptop321 (talk) 01:50, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to the page Bid‘ah. Such edits constitute vandalism and are reverted. Please do not continue to make unconstructive edits to pages; use the sandbox for testing. Thank you. Oldlaptop321 (talk) 01:56, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry

I apologize for the reverts, I mistook the edits in question for vandalism. Oldlaptop321 (talk) 02:03, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

No worries.Vote Cthulhu (talk) 02:04, 27 April 2009 (UTC)