This is an archive of past discussions with User:Eyrian. 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.
In your reversion here you remove a reference to the OED, giving the comment "rv; a 350-year-old anglocentric dictionary is insufficient". I am rather puzzled by this, since the OED is at most 150 years old, and there was no indication that they weren't referring to the most recent edition. Marnanel12:27, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
That's actually a good point; I'm not sure I was thinking clearly. Regardless, I'd like to see a more specific citation, particularly edition. --Eyrian13:15, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Well i dont know what happen. I am founder of argonath rpg server game. It is server for GTA VC and SA game. It is most popular server it in. Imade article about it. Just dont know why its delated? Need help with it.
Wikipedia requires the subjects of articles to be notable. Please read this link to find out what that means. If your English is insufficient to understand the policy, then you would probably have more luck on one of the many other global wikipedias. --Eyrian18:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
re:Slashdot
I don't see what is so "incredibly inadvisable" about knowing who you are on slashdot, but whatever.
I presented a case to you, in post, with my analysis of what is going on. I will be happy to give you a full point-by-point breakdown, going through the various pieces and contribution histories and events, if you want.
I operate on the "tough but fair" policy. You were combative, so I was. If you don't want this to be combative... then don't be. I'm offering up my analysis to you in good faith because I really see a systemic problem within wikipedia that needs addressing if the project is to ever have any hope of even coming close to its potential, rather than remaining the dregs of the internet and a shining example for all those who insist the internet is worthless. Moryath19:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I thought it unwise to have two accounts with such radically different behavioral norms be linked. I don't want what I do on Slashdot to reflect here, or vice-versa; they're totally different contexts in my mind.
1 - A review of the edits and speaking style shows that of the original three in the case, two are likely sockpuppets. The third had a completely different writing style, a completely different method of discussion, and maintained his innocence the whole time.
2 - The declaration of the third as a "sockpuppet" was made on two bases: that it reverted to edits made by the other two (which is rather hard to avoid when a large-scale organized edit war is going on) and based on the "secret evidence" of checkuser that I find highly suspect.
3 - Since the occasion, there has been a consistent timing regarding the "discovery" of "new sockpuppets": there has been a year and 10 month extension on the original ban, and during the entire time, the original third person's user page has remained insultingly marked and locked to prevent the user from coming back to edit and request a review of the situation.
4 - Of the supposed "new sockpuppets" a good number never came anywhere near the original bone of contention (israel/palestine) but were declared "sockpuppets" anyways. The goal here seems to be either (a) to have an excuse to ban someone or (b) to use an excuse to extend the ban or (c) both.
Take a close look at Enviroknot's edits compared to ElKabong/KaintheScion; take a look at Pukachu and PSPMario who never came anywhere near Israel/Palestine but were banned as claimed "sockpuppets of Enviroknot" anyways.
Then there's the fact that they declared three DHCP IP ADDRESSES as "sockpuppets", I'm sure as a method to bolstering phony checkuser items in the future. In March, Slimvirgin seems to have gone around creating this tag on any page she felt like (check the user pages, you'll see her playing games "updating" them).
Look at the whole discussion - look how quickly anyone who disagrees with admins like FayssalF are accused of being "sockpuppets." Look how quickly they moved to close discussion.
This is how wikipedia admins operate. I've watched it in numerous cases, and I'm presenting them to you. If you claim to be "impartial", then be so.
I agree with you. The whole thing looks quite suspect. Unfortunately, these things happen. Not to say that they should be excused, but I disagree with your fundamental assertion that Wikipedia is more broken than any comparably-sized social institution.
Now, the question becomes, what would you have me do? These events are months old, and I find it likely that the contributors in this case have since moved on. I have, as I said I would, started to look more closely at AN and ANI, to keep an eye on these things as they develop. If, in the future, you have something you'd like me to take a look at, just ask. --Eyrian 14:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
The contributors - alas - are likely gone for good. It's very sad that abusive administrators were allowed to run off good contributors, or even neutral contributors that could have been made good.
However, most of the OFFENDERS are still here and still admins. To top that off, the false accusations are still being used to silence others. This is a problem. Moryath04:14, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately, though I have considerable power as an administrator, it is, in fact, limited. And there are some users (ArbCom, etc.) that have a great deal more time and power than I do. If, however, you see something wrong, I will do my best to help you make it right. Please keep me notified. --Eyrian 19:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
I would say that the majority of these usernames ought to have their names cleared.
Whether they come back afterwards, of course, would be their own business. Unless "it's months old" is an excuse to let abuse like this go uncontested.
P.S. If you could help figure out why it is the thing insists on "signing" with my IP rather than my name even when I log in, it would be appreciated. Moryath04:41, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Raygun
I have restored the bulk deletion that you did on Raygun, cutting it back to a stub. Please discuss before such a big deletion. The material in that list is needed to give an impression to the readers of what fictional rayguns are about, and it has stood there since September 2005 without anyone querying it. It may be cruft to someone who is not a science fiction fan, but it is relevant information to science fiction fans. Anthony Appleyard22:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Your recent edit to Arabella Figg (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. For future editing tests use the sandbox. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // MartinBot15:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
You really need to stop nominating whole groups of articles for deletion for no legitimate reason. If you think you have a reason to delete them, go get a real discussion going on the overall concept, don't list a bunch of them separately. This is just nuisance nominating. DreamGuy23:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
I will do no such thing. Previous attempts at forming consensus come down that deletion should be determined on a case-by-case basis, with each article being examined on its own merits. That is precisely what is happening now. Few others have thought the nominations are illegitimate, and I've been careful only to nominate those that actually lack the redeeming features required for a popular culture article. This is just nuisance whining.--Eyrian 23:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
One's userpage does not belong to the community. It belongs to Wikipedia and Wikipedia does not belong to the community, but the community belongs to Wikipedia. --Thus Spake Anittas21:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Wow. I must say, I'm surprised this is my first barnstar. Thanks! --Eyrian 20:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
numbers in sports
Please read WP:NUM#Numbers in sports before purging any more sports numbers sections. (On the other hand, and speaking only for myself, please continue to feel free to delete external links sections indiscriminately). Knodeltheory21:11, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I disagree with that. And the recommendations of a Wikiproject pale compared to the five pillars of Wikipedia, which state that Wikipedia is not a trivia collection. Numbers can, and will, occur anywhere and everywhere. Documenting those occurrences is foolish and trivial. --Eyrian 21:13, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
I place more trust in a group of people (the members of a project) who have discussed in regards to a particular topic what Wikipedia's readers might be most expecting to find in an article on the given topic, than in one rogue admin acting all by himself according to his own highly individualistic interpretation of the five pillars. Plinth molecular gathered22:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm genuinely surprised that this is the first time I've been called a rogue admin. I stand by my statement. Please address it directly; I will not accept an argument from authority. --Eyrian 01:47, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't go as far as Plinth, but I'll agree with part of what he's said: the members of WP:NUM have discussed what it is that people would hope to see in an article about a number. For example, they'd be disappointed to look up 23 and find no mention of Michael Jordan. But they wouldn't expect to find a list of every minor leaguer who's ever worn a #23 jersey. Did you give this any thought when you just arbitrarily deleted the entire sports section for the 40s? Knodeltheory14:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Obviously not. Retired jersey numbers sound alright. These articles still need heavy purging. --Eyrian 15:55, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Note that I still do not consider the "these cases are old" you gave earlier to be a valid excuse.
I'm also having a good laugh at the newest Brandt fiasco - now do you see the dynamics in play? Moryath14:57, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Look at User talk:Hexrei, and you'll see it was a brief block. A warning might have been more appropriate, but short blocks aren't awful. Posting personal information is very inappropriate, and Hexrei can continue to edit with that in mind.
Regarding the new Brandt issues, what are you talking about? He's been banned because it's impossible to work with someone actively engaged in off-site harassment of editors. --Eyrian 15:09, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
I've been seeing the Brandt stuff for years and it's another great example - there's a group of people who happen to be admins who don't like Brandt, and so rather than make efforts to make the situation better, they deliberately poke and prod and antagonize him. The language they use about him is very telling, as are past statements and misstatements that have been made on wikipedia knowing full well Brandt was blocked and unable to speak up for himself to counter their claims. Moryath17:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Eyrian, I made a "policy-based" decision. The complaints from deletion advocates that were policy-based pointed at the trivial content. Elimination of the trivial content satisfies that concern. If you have further concerns, please address them to Wikipedia:Deletion review. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 17:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Trivial content is not something that is strictly defined. There was a solid consensus that the entire article was trivia. Leading to deletion without prejudice. I'll see you at DRV. --Eyrian 17:47, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Meanwhile, users who made good edits but who Dreamguy and other abusive editors/admins managed to rile up are banned for life? I say this is a serious problem in Wikipedia. Moryath18:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
I have, in fact, been attacked by DreamGuy before. Just look up the page. I'll look into it. --Eyrian 19:11, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm watching for your response. I'm seeing another name (BhaiSaab) mentioned later down the ANI page now; this is one of the worst members of a known troublemaking clique on Israel/Palestine issues that sadly includes administrator FayssalF and a few others as "enforcers."
The reporting editor Arrow740, if you look into history, has been accused of being "Enviroknot" before as well - it's one of their standard attacks. Moryath21:33, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Just FYI: I have spoken in on the Dreamguy section in the Administrators Noticeboard linked above. Moryath03:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
A sincere compliment
I gotta hand it to you; you never lose your cool. I disagree with you on a lot of things, but I admire your ability to calmly respond to whatever anyone might say, no matter how outrageous. It's an especially effective skill in any confrontation, and one that I'm still learning. You're all right. Mandsford19:52, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! Though we've been at odds sometimes, you're pretty cool, too. --Eyrian 20:43, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
I was using Twinkle. I'll see about doing it manually next time. --Eyrian 17:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
There's no problem with the tool, if you could just wait a few seconds between clicks, to allow manual editors to get an edit in. This, or apply for a bot flag :-) Sandstein17:35, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Really? The article on cryptids says otherwise: "Cryptids are creatures presumed extinct, hypothetical species, or creatures known from anecdotal evidence and/or other evidence insufficient to prove their existence with scientific certainty." That doesn't cover purely mythological creatures not thought to have ever existed. --Eyrian 20:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
It's a vandalism-only account, doing so blatantly. I would have used template:bv if I'd been first. --Eyrian 00:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
IPCs
When did this ideology against IPC articles begin? It seems to be taking on the rhetorical trappings of a cult. Is Wikipedia to be purged of all undesireables and made pure? I will not defend the "Video games" article, since I didn't create it out of personal interest and I am not inclined to track down sources for it. However, the popular culture article contains a number of valid references to the creature in art and literature. I find it odd that editors are willing to delete good content and good sources just because the article doesn't make a point (yet). Tag the article and tell people to put secondary sources into it. Most of your issues could be resolved by the addtion of maybe three paragraphs worth of text. Deleting the entire article is not only overkill, it borders on censorship. I would like to know where I can debate this issue on Wikipedia, because I think it has wider implications than people immediately realise. Wikipedia has to decide whether it is to be an ivory-tower elite dictating the validity of content, like Britannica, or whether it wishes to remain truly open to all. Serendipodous05:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
How is the rhetoric cult-like? These articles are in violation of the core principles of Wikipedia (not a trivia collection), and that is what is being argued. I (and many other editors, apparently) do not think that these articles are good content. I do not think there are sources. Certainly not to the extent to justify separate articles. Where would these paragraphs of text come from? My considerable experience tells me that they're wholly original research, in the rare instances they're present.
How is this even close to censorship? Nobody is claiming that this information doesn't belong, just that these worthless lists need to be eliminated. The parts of them that actually have relevance to the main work can be mentioned in the article for that work (assuming it even has one). This isn't about an Ivory Tower elite dictating content, it's about ordinary people maintaining the same rules that Wikipedia has always had. New and anonymous users are just as welcome to contribute as ever, but they must still follow community rules about content. People who add cited (or even citable) content to articles will always be welcome. Wikipedia is open to everyone, but not everything.--Eyrian 13:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
taking you at your word
I have started a rather elaborate comment on this on the page suggested. it may get too elaborate, and then I'll move it to my own space. I think you are not covering adequately the basic point, of whether WP should contain such material, and adjust the guidelines to accommodate it. The details of sourcing are to permit good articles, and if they need to be changed to permit certain types of articles, that's OK too. Don't assume the rule against primary sources is one of the pillars. DGG (talk) 17:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
The argument that I had intended to make was supposed to be made from the fundamental principles of Wikipedia, with reference to existing policy. Indeed, I know that primary sources are not prohibited, but trivia collections are. My reasoning is that unless its importance is remarked upon elsewhere, it is trivial when speaking about a separate subject. This isn't about limiting the coverage of any article about it's subject, it's about limiting other places where things are referenced. --Eyrian 17:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, Seraphimblade thinks they are prohibited, and will argue on that ground. But about the trivia part, I think that almost all reviews on the material will in fact mention the influences, and that almost all of the references dealing with videos and films and books can be sourced, and many of the music ones. Games are harder, for the literature is not in published independent RSs for the most part, except for some of the really major games. (I did once establish the relevance of a weapon in Civilization on the basis of the game guide, which specifically talks about the relations between the game weapons and the real world weapons.)
Suggestion: a three-month moratorium on deletions of this group of articles while the articles are upgraded? I think for matters of this sort there will need to be compromise--there are only 3 ways to keep going when principles differ: compromise, continual fighting, and driving one party away. DGG (talk) 19:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Before that, I want to see the results of improving a single article. I'll pick one and let you know. --Eyrian 19:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Uncalled for accusation of personal attack
I am supposed to have mentioned you by name? (No, it's not just you. There does seem to be a very lot of rote voting on "popular culture" articles from editors who seem to ignore significant differences among them. That's what I meant by "popular-culture bot". I cheerfully confess that this purge is tiresome and frustrating, has to end.) - Smerdis of Tlön17:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Mentioning "deletion by the popular-culture bot" in an AfD I've started seems to have pretty clear targeting. Even if it could've been targeted at one or two other users, it's still uncalled for. What you should have said is what you meant, i.e. that you think people are ignoring specific differences. Just as one doesn't call someone who's mistaken an idiot. --Eyrian 17:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
To be perfectly honest, I wasn't even paying attention to who started that particular AfD. But when you get opinions like:
Delete all %SUBJECT% in popular culture lists, they are nothing but trivia and violate the five pillars of Wikipedia as well.
Well, in truth, most of these articles are cut from the same cloth. I make basically the same article each time. Does the order of the words really matter? --Eyrian 18:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
As a matter of fact, they do matter. I do try to try to show some discernment among these articles, and to at least give the impression that I have skimmed through them. So there is a difference between Ambrose Bierce in popular culture and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adolf Hitler in popular culture. My usual recommendation is to move the data to talk or a subpage of the talk page, which used to be the canonical thing to do with seriously flawed sections that need heavy editing, and a practice I have followed in the past. Frankly, your arguments would be more convincing if you showed some discrimination between different articles of this sort. Yes, we need an article on Adolf Hitler in popular culture, even if all it's prepared to say so far is that:
Adolf Hitler, former chancellor and Fuhrer of the Third Reich of Germany, frequently appears in a variety of fictions, including novels, movies, and plays. His character is seldom treated sympathetically.
Why does a single paragraph need a separate article? Again, these articles are all basically the same. This is why we have a very small set of vandalism templates, because people often do things the same way. They play spot-the-reference with a thousand TV-shows and video games, and the subject doesn't really have much bearing on the outcome except for how many times The Simpsons are referenced. --Eyrian 19:06, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
You nominated this for deletion and then closed the deletion 8 minutes later, deleting the entry immediaely after that. I am unsure how that is justified. We have been discussing what to do with the entry (e.g. here and discussion above) and this seems to ignore both the guidelines of AfDs and the principle of reaching consensus on how to deal with things (which is what we have been working towards for some time to make sure we get it right). (Emperor17:48, 1 August 2007 (UTC))
The article was already deleted by this AfD, allowing it to be deleted on sight. I didn't notice this until I'd already made the nomination. --Eyrian 17:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
WP:SPEEDY says this can only be done "provided that the copy is substantially identical to the deleted version and that any revisions made clearly do not address the reasons for which the page was deleted" - now I don't know what the previous version was like but the current one had been edited and expanded by a number of users so I doubt it resembled a copy of the previous one. (Emperor17:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC))
The only substantial difference was that the list of examples was longer. --Eyrian 17:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm suprised but fair enough - something needed doing with it. I'd have prefered merged it and addressed the issues but as it had been deleted it was always going to being in danger. I'd better go and remove the merge tags and close the discussion (Emperor18:04, 1 August 2007 (UTC))
The problem was the same as was addressed in the original AfD: No independent sources. It couldn't've gone anywhere. --Eyrian 18:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Of course not!
No, I guess I managed to make my way to that article through something on the fabrics page, though I wasn't quite sure how I managed to find myself there either. Wikisurfing leads many places, and I suppose it's sheer coincidence I managed to find your three articles and tagged them. I think it all started with a random article binge; it's a wonder what you find clicking that button which needs work. Apologies for the misconception, and I can certainly see where you're coming from. In the future, I'll check to make sure I'm not tearing up your pages without warning you.Ravenmasterq00:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Sorry to bother you again, but apparently the tags I placed on the two armour articles in question were removed by someone who might have a little vendetta against me; I won't put them back, but I would still love to see those articles expanded. It's a rather interesting topic.Ravenmasterq02:21, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
How did the Me 262 page become affected by the F-22 edit war???
I think it has something to do with how he was reverting. --Eyrian 02:01, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps, but your edits show up there, too – as well as the edit notes apropos the edit war on F-22. Did you intentionally edit the Me 262 article during that timeframe? Askari Mark(Talk)04:33, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
I was certainly editing as well, but it was bzuk that was accidentally replacing the page with that of the F-22. --Eyrian 13:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
This day's escapade
Eyrian, I can only say that I had no idea that you were an admin with a specific agenda rather than a vandal. I was frantically trying to head off what I thought was a sophisticated effort which in my addled mind looked much like other events that had taken place in other spheres of Wikipedia including Charles Lindbergh and Amelia Earhart, two pages I had been "watching" just as the trolls struck. Along with other editors, a type of protection was eventually requested to help secure the articles from at least IP vandalism. My apologies for jumping to the conclusion that you were acting irresponsibly. I had not recalled coming across your name or user ID before so you can imagine my confusion when I called for an admin to oversee the reverts and you showed up. I really have no abiding interest one way or the other concerning popular culture and as other editors can verify, I have been relentless in culling out trivial and useless information in the aviation articles in which I have made contributions. My background is that I am an editor by trade and a writer by avocation (I can say proudly that I barely make a living from either venture!) and a librarian with 33+ years experience. I presently act as an administrator in an aviation industry lobbying association with specific tasks in providing aviation safety programs for pilots, flightcrew, ground staff and support personnel. Now that we have "crossed pens/keyboards", I would love to hear from you. You certainly seem to be a very experienced and knowledgable Wikipedia player and one with great passions for this wiki-wacky world we inhabit. FWIW Bzuk01:25, 2 August 2007 (UTC).
No problem. I hope we can continue to work together productively. --Eyrian
What was the reason for deleting this? I put all the appropriate reasons to restore the missing content in the discussion area as well as following the steps to prove the documentation that I included was GFDL. I see no reason that this page did not meet the criteria noted as the reason for deletion with the removed features put back in. Again everything was noted in the discussion less then 5 minutes before you deleted it. I ask that you please restore it.
Alright, the full page history is now available at Northern Italian language. Incidentally, why did you think to come to me for help? --Eyrian 19:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Indeed. Fair enough. --Eyrian 19:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Popular reference AfDs
Well, you've made your point. I agree with you to delete several of them, but to keep others. We need objective criteria for determining what articles that are lists of X in popular culture articles. Shall we start a centralized discussion or just a dialog? Bearian20:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Don't cite WP:POINT; it's not applicable. If you disagree, please explain specifically why. Please see WP:VPP#Popular culture references and User:Eyrian/IPC. Objective judgments about content will generally never appear. Existing policy about trivia is, however, quite clear. --Eyrian 20:45, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Like the user above, I greatly respect what you're doing, as I completely agree that most (though not necessarily all) "in pop culture" articles should be deleted. However, please, for the sake of those who, like you, want to rid WP of these articles, please stop referencing WP:FIVE. Mention WP:NOT or WP:TRIVIA or whatever, but don't use WP:FIVE. Aside from the fact that that's not a policy in and of itself, it comes off to others as a pompous, nonsensical rationale, and it's evident that others are not willing to pay attention to your (completely valid) arguments when you mention it. As someone who fully supports you in this matter, I ask you to be more specific with your reasoning. -- Kicking22215:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
That's one reason why I've been citing WP:NOT specifically. However, I'm not entirely happy with the looseness. I've been working over there to get something new done. Thanks for your support. --Eyrian 15:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't necessarily disagree with minimizing IPC articles and sections, but I think you handled the Goiânia accident in popular culture merge poorly. The merge tag was there for a decent amount of time, but there was no discussion on emasculating the list. If you were disturbed by the lack of citations, it would have been more appropriate to ask for them, instead of unilaterally deleting them all. I read your essay, and you have some good points, but I think you could have done a much better job of getting community buy-in for this effort. Mdotley17:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
The removed entries were uncited, mostly based on "this looks similar". they had to go. --Eyrian 17:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
I see it did not get certified. I was reluctant to push too hard--you may notice I never returned after the first comments-- and I hope we can yet resume working relations that may even become friendly. This is an apology, for there may have been a better way to proceed--probably an Rfa over the process, and one over the article topic. Several people said as much during the discussion, and I guess they were right. It would have been less personal. As you know, I think you're as wrong as possible over the way you've been doing this, but I still want to do the best for the articles, and improve what can be improved. That we disagree over the importance of the articles is not something to say wrong or right about. DGG (talk) 09:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
I also apologize for getting you involved in this. I want to emphasize that I want to avoid "throwing out the baby with the bath water" when you list AFD's. If you would slow down on listing new articles to delete, that will make the process much better. Thanks again for your attention. Bearian15:13, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
AIRCRAFT
Eyrian, please keep up the outstanding work on the aircraft pages. There are a couple of editors there that are filling the pages with junk trivia, and wanting anyone that challanges them to go to the discussion pages where they get ganged up on. Your actions are comendable.68.244.70.7303:08, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
More in IPC AfDs
Eyrian, while I agree with you on almost every AfD listing that you've made for this type of article, I have to say that you might want to slow down with the listings, as they are becoming hard for all parties in the discussion to keep track of. Some of the concepts of these articles do warrant an actual article (though most if not all should be renamed) like Plato's Republic in popular culture, which is now cultural influence of Plato's Republic. So I'd say, wait about a week before nominating more of them, let the AfD's out there come to a close, and then we can address more articles like this. I think that might be the best thing all around. CaveatLectorTalk16:02, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Military history WikiProject coordinator selection
You asked me about fixes. There are several advantages to doing this on the basis of the original article without deleting it: 1/ it preserves the history visible to non admins, not just admins such as you and me--thus facilitating the incorporation of what is good in the original. 2/ it encourages rather than discourages people who want to work on it. this psychological barrier can be substantial. I have substantially upgraded many existing articles, whereas I have not been working actively on the several deleted articles where I have kept copies. 3/ it provides information to readers in the interim The objection, of course, is that it also facilitates adding back the low-quality content.
I use fix as a rather general term, including everything from deleting a or sourcing a few comments to re-writing from scratch. Let's call them all upgrades.
As you know, I frequently do these of articles at AfD on professors and related people--this sometimes amounts to writing a short article, it more often amounts to rearranging and supplementing the data provided, while removing the spam. It may not be as evident that I also do this to articles on both companies and non-profits when I see them at CSD or on the New article logs. (I use the subject logs from AlexNewArticle Bot such as this one on Education (For some reason, I rarely write articles from scratch unless they are rather formulaic--here and in the RW I do much more rewriting than writing. ) I suggest therefore it will be useful to indicate that they need to be done, possibly by incorporation into a wikiproject--one which should be inhabited by people with various views. An example of what I think of as the sort of thing to do is the revision I started in the article on the Eiffel Tower in poular culture.
I've explained elsewhere why even so-called trivia is in my opinion encyclopedic. to summarize: Listing things by series and creators and major characters is the obvious first step. Discussing it by themes and allusions is the next. Fully analyzing this is of course OR, but collecting the material already in WP and finding outside references to support it is not. this is what the so called trivia sections now do in a primitive way, and the job now is to do it better. I know you think there is a level of use too minor to be accounted for, but I think the history of scholarship shows otherwise. For example notably, it is the study of the minutia in paintings, that they are ascribed to their proper artists and the historical development of each artists work discerned--this is the basic method of art history. Similarly in literature, there is no allusion in Shakespeare too minor to illuminate Shakespeare, and every trifle has been studied. DGG (talk) 00:52, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
I nominate articles for two reasons: hopeful, and hopeless. Hopeful articles are unacceptable. They do not assert notability, they are not sourced, and they violate Wikipedia standards. It is possible that they could be fixed, but I find that doesn't often happen. If I slap a cleanup tag on an article, it'll sit there for months and months and nobody will pay it any mind. Original research, dubious "facts", etc. will remain. I nominate these articles in a certain way.
The other articles I nominate are hopeless. Hopeless articles can generally only be written about a subject, and not a "thing". They are "in popular culture" or variations on that theme. And they are, invariable, long rambling lists of trivia. They cannot be fixed. There is no single fact in them that will be useful in constructing an encyclopedic article. Oh, yes, someone could read that list, make their own studies, and use it to produce secondary analysis, but that is not what Wikipedia is about, and we should not be compromising fundamental ideals to service that need. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. In this case, that means assembling secondary sources in a cogent way that describes the current state of the field. It does not mean listing a bunch of primary sources. Yes, you're right, people study minutiae of paintings, films, etc. to produce their own analyses. But that's not what Wikipedia is about! We are not in the business of collecting primary source data for people to analyze on their own. That's not encyclopedic. One might argue that Wikipedia should contain useful information, but this again stands against Wikipedia's purpose. Wikipedia isn't supposed to contain all useful information, it is an encylopedia. Comprehensive coverage is wonderful, but we cannot shirk the requirements of the way in which that coverage must be built. --Eyrian 14:50, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Pumpkin queen
Please do not vandalize this page any further. You are unilaterally deleting content, including official website links and such reliable sources as CNN! You are misrepresenting changes as well. I have requested feedback from another admin, so you can stop edit warring on this one. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho!17:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Please note that vandalism requires bad faith. Which is what you are assuming, contrary to WP:AGF. I do everything to better the encyclopedia. --Eyrian 17:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
I fear that you may be going after an article I contribute a lot to, because of our disagreement at Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Popular_culture last month, which I hope is not the case. Also, in your mass deletion on that article you are even deleting the references for Marlane Kennedy, which are independent book reviews, without any explanation. Moreover, you are deleting content while I am in the process of improving the article, rather than just going about destroying other's work. --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho!17:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Improvement often means editing. Calling it destruction merely attempts to distract from the fact that what is being added does not conform with Wikipedia policies. If you're working on something, and its current form does not conform to policy, try using a sandbox to perfect it, such as this one. --Eyrian 17:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
These edits do not violate any Wikipedia policies. You removed independent book review references, references to official sites, CNN, etc. Even if you don't personally like the list (never mind that we have lists for all kinds of stuff and most editors don't have problems with them), then YOU could have perhaps still took the time to keep the many appropriate references as references to the statement about the contests being held at many festivals or kept the review references for the Me and the Pumkin Queen book instead of just reverting all of my edits and tossing on a need's references tag. The article had plenty of references that no one would justifiably dispute. --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho!17:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
You don't think anyone could justifiably dispute deviantART accounts as references? Please read WP:RS. The CNN reference about a single pumpkin festival, which has an article, and has a link. --Eyrian 18:05, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
I have no objection to creating articles about other notable pumpkin festivals and listing their websites and winners there, but they do not belong in the main article. Unreliable sources cannot prove anything. This is a fundamental tenet of Wikipedia. --Eyrian 18:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Multiple different sources from multiple different authors is indicative of something. Again, though, what you did does not improve the article, because you did not take the extra effort to look for sources yourself or keep the ones that do provide neutral opinions of Marlane's book and so on. In any event, I requested a third opinion and asked a couple other admins who I've worked with before for their take as I don't see either of us convincing the other in the immediate future. I'll see what others say tomorrow. I'm not unwilling to create additional articles, but most of what you decided yourself you don't like really should be restored. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho!18:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
No. What you are doing is original research. Please see User:Eyrian/IPC#The number of entries in the list proves notability in popular culture. Some of the removed information might belong in certain other articles (the links to festivals and lists of winners, in the articles of particular festivals), but it most certainly doesn't belong in the main article. The same is true of reviews of the book. --Eyrian 18:16, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Again, you are wrong and a link to your own page doesn't indicate Wikipedia policy. The book reviews are there in case if anyone comes upon the article and asks whether or not the book exists. By having the reviews, it shows someone that yes, the book exists and it isn't a hoax. Thus, the links certainly do belong in the main article.--Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho!18:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
You're right, it's not policy. It's an argument. You need to refute it if you wish to disagree. I made the essay so that I can set down my counterarguments in a single place, without having to repeat myself constantly. The book is now properly linked. --Eyrian 18:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
A third opinion on this dispute was requested at Wikipedia:Third opinion. I am reluctant to provide a third opinion on a user talk page, because it usually gets lost in archiving, and the dispute might arise again after some time. I encourage you to move this discussion to the talk page of the relevant article.
Summarized, User:Eyrian is right in every way. I will explain my position briefly and hopefully clearly.
Some of these shows are indeed notable, as they have been featured on CNN etc. That is why they have their own page, and list the pumpkin queens there. Perfectly fine. However, some of the other shows are not notable - they have not been covered by reliable sources, and do not have their own page. Some forum posts and self-published websites writing about them does not establish notability.
Using deviantart, fanfiction and flickr as sources is not allowed.1
1: Unless, per WP:RS, the author of the work is an expert, who has also had his work published by independent publishers, discussing his field of study - then self-published work is allowed. This does not apply here.
The fundamentally unsourced parts of the article containing lists of queens of non-notable festivals should therefore be removed. However, do list the festivals. Why? Completeness. When three festivals have been covered by reliable sources, making a list of other festivals is perfectly fine. Do not get into details - just list the names. To further illustrate this, the general rule is that if a few (say, three) entries in a list have been covered in a non-trivial way by reliable sources, it is fine to make a list of the rest of them. For example, in model trains, if three trains in the "Supertrain" series had been covered by the Times in an article specifically about each train (a miniseries?), listing the rest of that series would be good, required even. Do apply common sense - if the series contained three hundred instead of ten trains, for example.
In this case, a list of the largest pumpkin festivals - without any details such as the winners back to 1903 - would be fine. --User:Krator (tc) 19:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for fulfilling my request. I am under the impression that it would be best if Eyrian and I avoid each other for the time being and allow others to work on this particular article at least until things cool down between us. Maybe we can work together at a future date, but we should probably be wise to take a break from debating each other and each other's work for the immediate future, because I fear we are getting off track of focusing on improving this website. So, I hope the best for everyone. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho!13:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
DRV
Hey Eyrian,
I requested a deletion review here. It's nothing against you really, but since you closed the AfD please take a look.
No, it is most certainly against me. The entire thing is based around my biases, and alleged inability to be objective. --Eyrian 13:00, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Please don't close any X in popular culture AFDs
You have a strong bias against the X in popular culture series. Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators says in part "Administrators necessarily must use their best judgment, attempting to be as impartial as is possible for a fallible human, to determine when rough consensus has been reached." With your strong bias, it is nearly impossible for you to be an impartial judge on this topic, unless the discussion is unanimous. It is far better for the project for you to leave all these XFD closes to uninvolved admins. GRBerry01:43, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
That AfD was a rather long time ago. Well before I started doing what was necessary with regards to other articles. --Eyrian 01:44, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
it's me (who wrote Plated mail), could you help me again ? :-)
Cheap (on the left) and luxurious (on the right) Mirror Armours (Kazakhstan)
Mirror armour (Russian: ЗерцалоZertsalo which means a "mirror", Kazakh: Шар-айнаShar-ayna were Kazakh: айнаayna means a "mirror" too), sometimes referenced as Disk Armour or as Chahar-Ai-Ne — a kind of oriental partial plate armour which was developed initially from round metal mirrors (a kind of rondels) worn over other armour (usually over mail) as enforcement. Metal mirrors in this armour were considered not only as protection from cold steel and arrows, but also it's believed that mirrors could reflect evil-eye, so they should be polished and worn over other armour.
Early mirror armour: a round mirror with few leather laces laced to body (similar to roman phaelerae).
Late mirror armour: mirror cuirass (similar by construction to japanese Yukinoshita Dô/Sendai Dô), helmet, greaves, and bracers worn with mail.
Done, thanks. --Eyrian 14:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks to you :-)
Don't squelch opposing views
I think that removing my comment from this essay's talk page is inappropriate. I have removed my characterization of your essay, but my point remains an important one to consider.--Drboisclair18:08, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Your comment wasn't constructive. It was needlessly hostile. As you'll note, that page has several opposing views. I left them there because, rather than huffily stating "You're wrong, and Wikipedia should never follow your pompous suggestions", they opened a dialogue stating their views. As I said, you're welcome to explain your difference of opinion, but that comment was just disruptive. --Eyrian 18:12, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes. And as this is my userspace, I will remove comments that I find disruptive. --Eyrian 18:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
As an administrator you should know that it is bad form to delete material from talk pages. While I would grant an exclusive right to a main page that is your space, a talk page is different. Censorship there is bad form.--Drboisclair18:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Depends on the material. Your latest comment was more constructive, and I even replied to it. I think you'll find it's more productive to make useful comments than debate over why hostile ones are removed. --Eyrian 18:23, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep your chin up; accusations of bias are cheap shots and those who make them are cheapshots. Just this week I've been accused of being racist against Palestinians, not sufficiently concerned with Israeli editors' complaints about abusive Palestinian editors, and not giving a better than fair shake to fellow Latinos. Carlossuarez4602:43, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the notification of the deletion discussion. As a matter of fact, I agree with you that it should be deleted - I hate these "in popular culture" lists. However, I wasn't bold enough to delete such a large amount from the Phoenix article (which was where the entirity of the new article article originally was), so settled for splitting it on the basis that it would at least make Phoenix higher quality... Best, Richard of York22:20, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Maybe something constructive we can work on?
I just located a bunch of anonymous vandalism on the article for aurora (astronomy). I believe you are an administrator, so please do feel free to warn the users appropriately, i.e. if my efforts are not correct. Here are the relevant diffs: [1] and [2]. I believe I am still learning how to issue warnings and so please check over and correct my warnings (not welcomes) to these editors. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho!03:07, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Everything seems in order there. However, you might consider using a lower level warning (from the uw-v{1-4} series) for first time offenses that aren't particularly egregious. --Eyrian 03:18, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Good, thanks. Is it generally okay for non-administrators to issue warnings? I see other regular editors do that, but was not sure if there is a policy there or not. Also, Chaser (the administrator who adopted me) suggested via private conversation offerring an olive branch and I thought a good way to do that would be to help out improving on some of the stubs you created. So, hopefully that helped some. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho!03:21, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Everyone is allowed to administer warnings, but inexperienced users who misuse them may end up creating more problems than they solve. Your changes seem generally fine. --Eyrian 03:23, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
My reference was mention in a 1986 Childrens Film Foundation work, "Haunters of the Deep",
but it was my understnading that it drew the Spriggan concepts from Cornish folklore.
Perhaps given your sources you might want to check the mining connection?
ShakespeareFan0014:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
My folklore sources are more general purpose than they might be. But I'll look into it. Thanks for the note. --Eyrian 14:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
On a related note, You might also in investigating the above, look into why White Rabbits (or possibly hares?) were not liked in relation to Cornish Tin mining? (note past tense as I wasn't aware of any currently operating mines) ShakespeareFan0016:55, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Your signature
I don't think I've ever noticed, before, an admin signature that didn't have a link to his/her user talk page (though I admit to not looking systematically). Please pardon my curiosity - is there some reason your sig doesn't have such a link? -- John Broughton(♫♫)16:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't really like custom signatures. I prefer the more ascetic approach, as custom sigs tend to clutter up pages. --Eyrian 16:47, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Okay, but you could just change your signature to point to your user talk page, rather than to your user page. That would add exactly five more characters to your signature, while making it much easier for users to respond to your postings. -- John Broughton(♫♫)12:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't even take that. --Eyrian 16:29, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
References question
Hello! Is there a reference tag I could use for articles that cite say only one source, i.e rather than the tag that I just placed on the Marquis article that says the article does not cite any sources? Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho!21:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps {{refimprove}} is what you're looking for. --Eyrian 22:07, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
_Almaty_Museum.jpg)