User talk:Ningauble/Archive 14

Archive

This is an archive of past discussions on User talk:Ningauble from Jan–Jun 2015.
Do not edit this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please use the current talk page.

Alireza Salehi Nejad

Hi Ningauble, I have received your message. It's a bit confusing to me. Could you provide me with a guidance, or kindly take a moment that we address the issues on email. (talk) 15:04, 12 January 2015 (GMT) —This unsigned comment is by Arashtitan (talk • contribs) 15:04, 12 January 2015‎.

See Wikipedia's general guideline for determining notability. If you want to discuss it, please do so on-wiki rather than using email. Unless confidentiality is strictly necessary, it is best to hold discussions where other users can review and comment on the matter. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:17, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

(talk) 15:38, 12 January 2015 (GMT) —This unsigned comment is by Arashtitan (talk • contribs) 15:38, 12 January 2015‎.

Malarka

He's the same vandal, should be indef-blocked. ~ DanielTom (talk) 16:53, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Hannah Rothschild

All right, Ningauble, for me there is no problem if you want delete the article, really there is not this article in wikipedia. --Wiki Wisdom (talk) 20:17, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Check-user?

It has been brought up that we need a local Check-user. Based on your fairly steady participation and lack of excessive drama - and the fact that you're not a 'crat, so there should be no concerns about an excessive concentration of user rights - I would like to nominate you for that position. What say you? BD2412 T 04:57, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

@Ningauble, I'd support you, but we'd need a minimum of two per site. And we'd need to get 25 local support votes. Per m:Checkuser. -- Cirt (talk) 05:19, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

(I am well aware of the global policy. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:12, 4 February 2015 (UTC))

• I appreciate the expression of confidence, but I am not sure about this. It has been brought up before, but I was reluctant to involve myself in the personally identifying information of bad actors.[1] I am also not very desirous of making myself the go-to guy for drama queens.[2]

  I am frankly finding it difficult to see any point in having local checkusers when we have no clear local policy about using multiple accounts [3] (and little prospect for developing one) and where, e.g., a clear case of puppet vote stacking[4] is speedily excused[5] before people who avoid excessive drama even get a chance to sift through mass quantities of hysteria and obfuscation or to, here's a thought, look for evidence to be developed.

  I would be reluctant to undertake this unless (a) there is clear consensus in the community about policies for using checkuser tools, and (b) there is clear consensus in the community about policies for the activities that the tools are used to investigate, and (c) there will be a quorum of at least three regularly active checkusers to evaluate evidence and interpret policy together.

  Even if these were the case, I am not entirely sure it would be worth my while because I am very disillusioned by directions the Wikiquote community has lately been drifting. I might be persuaded that it would not be entirely futile and would achieve more than what the Stewards already provide, but I am not seeing it right now. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:12, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

  I'll accept the nom if you will, and if we can find a third editor likely to pass the nomination process. I do wonder, however, if we can get 25 local editors to vote in anything at all. I also agree that we need a sockpuppetry policy. BD2412 T 19:58, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

BRD: removal of introductory content

The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new topic on this or other appropriate talk page. No further edits should be made to this text.

The result was: The parties agree there are no outstanding issues with verbose leads in these articles. The only previous issues we had with these were (1) removal of introductory content, the restoration of which is no longer contested, and (2) one case where it is agreed that, rather than being too verbose, expansion of the lead is welcome. ~ Ningauble (talk) 18:32, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

---

The following post, to which the subsequent subsection evidently replies, is copied here from User talk:Cirt.

I noticed, via my watchlist, that you have recently (Feb. 19–20) visited numerous articles I created or edited over the years and have removed information from the article introductions. In the spirit of WP:BRD I am offering a general explanation of why I am reverting most of these removals, to wit:

• A brief description of why the subject is notable is entirely consistent with the policy language at Wikiquote is not an encyclopedia, as drafted by me and endorsed by you.[6][7] Some of these introductions could probably be better written, but I believe the articles are not improved by simply removing the brief descriptions of what a person is notable for doing and/or what distinguishes a subject from others of its kind. The benefit of this information may be illustrated with some impartiality by an example of something that I did not write myself and was taken directly from Wikipedia, which you removed here: simply stating the person's occupation and an affiliation says nothing to identify why he is notable, or why anybody might be interested in quoting what he said about whatever it is he is known for doing.

I have only given a general explanation with a single example because your removals were quite numerous and I think the general idea is broadly applicable, although I recognize that individual cases may involve special circumstances.

If you disagree about some particular cases, please feel free to discuss it on the article's talk pages. On the other hand, if you disagree categorically then it would be better to open a central discussion of the underlying principles than to create scattered discussions relating to one general issue. The latter course would be particularly appropriate if the reason for your targeted review of articles listed at User:Ningauble#Contributions is because you believe I have been systematically doing something wrong.

Otherwise, please leave them alone. ~ Ningauble (talk) 20:06, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

A couple replies

Don't have much time at the moment, but might go through in the future on a case-by-case basis, as some of them were redundant to en.wikipedia. -- Cirt (talk) 22:49, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Fixed up a few that had in-line citations in the lede paragraphs and some systemic cleanup issues. -- Cirt (talk) 22:54, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Update: Noticing a few systemic issues, particularly: (1) Verbose intro sects, (2) In-line cites in lede sects, (3) Large external link sects bordering on linkspam. These should all be liberally trimmed for cleanup purposes. -- Cirt (talk) 23:01, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Firstly, since you have expunged my original post[8] I am reproducing it above. Hiding or obscuring one side of a discussion in progress is not conducive to coherent deliberation and, insofar as you aver there are "systemic issues" here after I suggested that a centralized discussion would be appropriate if you feel this to be the case, redacting my opening statement is, at best, an impediment to forming community consensus on a matter in dispute.

Secondly, regarding your initial point and subsequent numbered points above: (0) Adapting Wikipedia's introduction for use here is a very common and well established practice of many users, including longstanding administrators. Redundancy with external sources is hardly a problem as quotation itself is redundant. (1) The example cited above hardly fits the description of "verbose". Most of the introductions that you truncated consisted of only two or three brief sentences. Even if you feel the wording might be more concise, that is no reason to expunge any indication of why the subject is notable. (2) There were very few of these, hardly a systemic issue. (3) I said nothing about external link sections. Please do not change the subject, which is "removal of introductory content".

Finally, if you believe these are "systemic issues" they will need to be discussed at a central location to arrive at a community consensus. Would you prefer to use the Village Pump (to consider changing established policy and practice), or the Administrators' Noticeboard (to consider problems with the targeted individual's contributions), or is there another venue you think would be more appropriate? ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:18, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Seems like outstanding issues with intro lede sects being too verbose, in-line citations in ledes, and too much external links, are now only limited to a smattering of articles. These can be dealt with in the future on a case-by-case basis, as we are doing in a polite and cordial manner at Talk:Science fiction. -- Cirt (talk) 20:23, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, "issues with intro lede sects being too verbose" have been resolved by observing that there was in fact no such issue with most of your excisions and reverting them.

No, I do not consider the stream of impertinent objections you have been raising at Talk:Science fiction#Trimmed lede intro sect to be "polite and cordial". Just like the targeted butchering of articles I created or edited, I consider them harassment. ~ Ningauble (talk) 23:33, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry you feel that way, but there were indeed some genuine problems with verbose leads and overly long external link sects. -- Cirt (talk) 05:21, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

You are just repeating yourself.

1. This is not about external link sections. Please re-read the above section heading and opening post. Please stop haranguing me about unrelated matters.
2. Verbosity does not justify the excisions I reverted. On the only one (1) submitted for discussion you yourself endorsed expanding the introduction. Please stop badgering me with spurious objections.

Here is the context of this discussion:  I reverted some of your edits, gave notice of why I did so, and indicated where to discuss it if you disagree.

Going forward now:  If you must persist with your dispute but do not pick an appropriate venue for community review, as suggested above, then I will pick the venue.

Please cease and desist from harassing me about this on my talk page. ~ Ningauble (talk) 18:00, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Ningauble, we don't seem to have any outstanding issues with other pages at the present time. There were previous issues at other pages, but at the moment the discussion at Talk:Science fiction seems to be going reasonably alright. -- Cirt (talk) 21:25, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new topic on this or other appropriate talk page. No further edits should be made to this text.

Thanks

I noticed that you reverted my edit to Australia where I added unsourced attributions from the talk page back to the article. I didn't realise that this was against Wikiquote policy, and now I do. Keep up the good work. :) Orthogonal1 (talk) 11:13, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

[9]. At first, I had no idea how I managed to mangle that. I've been archiving pages for many years, never did that before. However, with some thought, this was it: I've also done a lot of research, and seeing in history when and where an archived page went can be very useful. Further, someone may disagree with an archiving, so I prefer to archive one discussion at a time. It's very easy if the close templates are inside the subject section. It is then a single edit to take it to archive, and the section title is in the edit history. If they are placed above the section header, as some do, editing that section leaves them out. So I separately restored them, and, obviously, I misplaced them. Thanks for catching it. --Abd (talk) 17:34, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Mistakes happen. I agree that placing the closing statement above the section heading can be confusing. It is common practice here in order to include the heading within the visually highlighted area of the closed discussion, which does indeed cause a double-take if one clicks the section edit button. ~ Ningauble (talk) 19:18, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. The way I think of it is that what is within the section is templated to close. The section is still there. Having the archive template above the section wreaks havoc on editing it (including archiving). It takes many more clicks or more complex editing. --Abd (talk) 02:20, 1 May 2015 (UTC)