User talk:UnitedStatesian/Archive 2

This page has been removed from search engines' indexes.

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I appreciate that you are willing to spend your time doing minor edits. The information that is added and the guidelines that we have need people to go around and make sure articles follow the manual of style or are properly named. It's takes time and effort and patience.

But moving articles isn't the same as wikifying or other formatting edits, and even something small like this, you should generally at least mention it on the talk page first and wait a few days to see what people say.

Also, if you are going to move an article, you are responsible for fixing the redirects caused by it. A half dozen pages link to the old location, and you didn't bother to change any of them. A brief look at your recent log shows that you haven't fixed any of the redirects caused by any of the articles. The move page has instructions and links to more detailed ones. If you haven't read these before, do. If you have, read them again. If you're going to be moving pages regularly you should know know these instructions well. Miss Mondegreen talk  07:32, November 9 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment; I assume you are talking about

List of alumni of University High School (Los Angeles, California)? There was already a discussion of renaming that page on that talk page (I checked), so I don't think it was out of the blue; there was also extensive discussion of the article renames on WikiProject:Schools, of which that page is a part. As far as redirects, the guideline only instructs the fixing of double redirects, not all redirects: that's why redirects work. I do fix all double redirects. If I am missing the instructions to fix all single redirects, and you can point me to them specifically, I would appreciate it. UnitedStatesian

18:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I meant the uni high alumni article. Sorry about that. And no, it's doesn't outright say anywhere to fix redirects, and in some places you actually aren't supposed to, but especially since you knew that a different move had been presented, not doing it was a bad idea (I get into that later). Anyway, moving on:

Yes, there was a prior discussion. The talk page had a prior discussion about whether the page would need to be renamed if we added notable faculty to it. Few problems though:

• the discussion was from may--that's several months old
• the discussion had no resolution
• the discussion is ABSOLUTELY IRRELEVANT

Sure, there was a discussion about renaming, but it's a different renaming, so what's that got to do with the price of fish? I don't know which discussion you are referring to on wikiproject schools. The project discussions renaming frequently and different issues with renaming, but the project has not taken a position on this particular mos, as far as I know.

Even if it had, you should have brought it up for discussion.

Had you, I would have protested. For starters, I'm not particularly sure that this is a good rule. Articles are supposed to be named accurately, and it isn't a list of alumni, it's a list of notable alumni, and frankly, the prevalence of articles titles is towards the later not the former. I also think that it might lead to more of the half unaware vandalism that is prevalent on these types of pages. I prefer removing the words "list of" from the title--those words actually are unnecessary and prevent from adding non-list material to the article. At any rate, even if I thought the renaming itself was a great idea, whether or not it needs to be renamed for notable faculty, it also happens to need to be renamed because the school is University SENIOR High, not just University High. The main page and the alumni page haven't been renamed because that means renaming the category which means extensive work. If we were going to take the word notable out of the title--it's not an important or pressing edit and could have waited until the page was renamed properly. This just means that there will be another redirect page, more redirects to edit and there really wasn't any good reason. Btw, your move and your not fixing the redirects has now ensured that when the page is moved...double redirect!

The manual of style is a guideline--you don't avoid bringing up discussion on a MOVE to enforce a guideline. Especially the manual of style. It's important, but you get into different article types and different locales and there are different naming conventions there, sometimes written, sometimes not, but important, and more relevant than an overarching guideline that doesn't take into account details that it can't. That's why it's a guideline, and that's why there's discussion. The editors of the article are the ones who know what's going on with the article, and generally, hopefully, the region, the wikiproject, etc.

Your enforcement of MOS:LIST.... I haven't gone through your edits fully, but I haven't see you propose any of these moves, including your most current, which at the moment is dated the 13th. MOS:LIST is NOT a major guidelines. To give you some idea of just how much of the community is involved in it: MOS:LIST has had around 300 edits by about 50 editors since 2003. From a quick look of edits marked minor and where the summary denoted the edit as minor, at least 60 of those edits are minor. It's had actually work this year--over 60 edits (including minor) from 21 editors. BUT, you're one of only three editors who touched the article more then once this year (excluding editors who made multiple edits marked as minor). Given that your edits (number wise) count for apx 12 percent of the total touches this year on MOS:LIST, and that your log reads row after row "list of notable" to "list of", often several in a day (23 moves on the third!), well, this starts to look a little like a crusade.

There's nothing wrong with really believing in a guideline or policy and wanting to promote it. But if you do it in an underhanded fashion--by avoiding discussion or trying to push it over on people or anything like that, that's not ok, and it'll eventually backfire.

I don't know how you're doing things for the most part, or why, and I'm assuming the best. But I hope that this explains to you why bringing a rename for discussion is so important (even if you see it as minor, others often don't), and how your edits can come across. There's no substitute for communication, and you're doing a lot of major editing, and not as much communicating.

I hope this helps; that I explained a little more clearly and thoroughly. Feel free to thwap me for incoherence. Miss Mondegreen talk  10:44, November 14 2007 (UTC)

Just for further background, there has been extensive discussion of "notable" in list names here and here, among other places. UnitedStatesian 14:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Please note the following from WP:REVERT: Do not revert good faith edits. In other words, try to consider the editor "on the other end." If what one is attempting is a positive contribution to Wikipedia, a revert of those contributions is inappropriate unless, and only unless, you as an editor possess firm, substantive, and objective proof to the contrary.

The edit that you reverted made several changes, only one of which is possibly covered by

Thanks for checking. I've reluctantly concluded that you're probably right, so please go ahead (if you've not already) and delink the word "notable". -- John Broughton (♫♫) 13:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

The change that you made to

UnitedStatesian, please note that your repeated moving of

List of Seton Hall University alumni has lead to a loss of significant information from the article. Whether this is intentional or not, this MUST BE corrected. Otherwise, it will be perceived as vandalism

.

As to the issue of notability, I should remind you that moslist only refers to guidelines.

WP:NOTABLE ALUMNI. Furthermore, I have seen no significant discussion on this issue and noticed that you made changes to the moslist guidelines yourself. Regardless of this, since you have succeeded in forking most of the alumni lists, I will not revert the changes on the Seton Hall University article. However, I remind you that your move MUST BE corrected to include all lost information as soon as possible to avoid any confusion. Thank you. aNubiSIII ^{(T / C}

) 06:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey US, I added a rationale to why the project was looking to create its own criteria. Could you take a look at it and see if it changes your mind?Balloonman (talk) 05:36, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I added my reason to object to the deletion of the Haberman Feeder article on the talkpage. Would you please respond, I'd like to know why you think this article isn't notable so I can improve where needed. Thanks. Felsir 12:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

You must be kidding. The AI is the leading national professional organisation of real estate appraisers in the US. Just read real estate appraisal, or go to the AI's website. This is like saying that the accountant's association or the bar association are not notable. I suggest you remove the tag. Tkeu 17:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Please do not remove entries from lists on the grounds of notability if you know nothing about the subject, as you did with

Hey. No problem. :) I appreciate being told. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 05:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that. Was my bad putting her in SEO consultants.

What cat is she? Igor Berger (talk) 04:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

How about Category:Venture capitalists? UnitedStatesian (talk) 04:54, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Well it would be hard to make it notable because there is nothing we can refer to, that I am aware of. She is, by her statement on her blog, "entrepreneur in residence for Ignition Partners," but that is a primary source, we need to get something official from IP,as to her position in the company. Is she a VC? Igor Berger (talk) 09:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Why would you dispute that distributed teams of learners interacting at Wikiversity forms a social networking site? Wikiversity is a social network of teams of learners actively seeking participation. cc talk page[1] Lazyquasar (talk) 20:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

An article that you have been involved in editing, Jacques Dallaire, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jacques Dallaire. Thank you. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 22:16, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I've thrown together a rough draft here

Template looks great. Move it into production, and thanks! UnitedStatesian (talk) 01:32, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I note your proposal to delete the Kogswell page. I urge you to reconsider. Kogswell is a well-established company with an extremely enthusiastic customer base. They have received good press coverage from periodicals such as "The Bicycle Quarterly," which unfortunately does not publish its articles on line. The company is noteworthy for its independence in design, as well as for its direct-to-customer marketing focus (although it also caters to several bicycle shops who are highly enthusiastic about Kogswell products). Yes, I sound like a PR agent working for Kogswell, but I am not. I am simply a big fan of the product, and a journalist who recognizes that the company is worthy of note on many levels. Please let me know what additional information I can put into the article to keep it from being eliminated. Thanks very much.

Adding citations from "The Bicycle Quarterly", even if not published online, to the article, will demonstrate its notability. Click

here for info. on how to cite these sources in the article. UnitedStatesian (talk

) 01:41, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Reflist!! D'oh! Thanks for the help. I'll get article titles and page numbers ASAP, probably tomorrow as well as other references (I hope).

talk

) 03:11, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Cool, I'll remove the PROD. UnitedStatesian (talk) 03:12, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi UnitedStatesian. Where do

I know its a bit of a stretch (and I am also trying to make a point), but these are the sentences I am thinking of:

From

WP:BK

: "The book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable, even in the absence of secondary sources." - that seems to be the book inheriting notability from the author.

And from

WP:MUSIC

, both: "Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable; note that it is often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects, early bands and such" - that is notability inherited from "band to band", and

"Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g. a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a compilation album, etc." - that is notability inherited from work to performer.

Let me know your thoughts.

UnitedStatesian (talk) 14:52, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I suppose you're right then. In an effort to reflect the above, I've added "in exceptional circumstances" to the relevant sentence in NOTINHERITED to make it clearer that this doesn't automatically apply to all book or music articles. Cheers,

Miremare

15:43, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Perfect, thanks. UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:13, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey Twsx - I just posted an essay at

Hello. Thank you for the notice! You have written a great essay; i appreciate your work. It reflects a serious problem (actually, after reading the essay I notice it is broader than I knew it was), and the essay it will be very useful when dealing with new editors. I don't have much to add to it. If something comes to mind I will propose it. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | ~ 21:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

A