User talk:Tikiwont: Difference between revisions
| Line 66: | Line 66: | ||
:Dear sir or ma'm, I assume you do not speak Armenian or Russian... I think it would be impossible for you to determine the notability of a post-Soviet composer if you don't speak the languages of cultures in which he is most relevant. Would you please reconsider your nomination for deletion, while others are providing more supporting material? I say this with all due respect. It just seems unfare to delete the entire article on a living composer based on standards of notability with are met now and are likely to be more convincing as time goes by. [[User:Wild firebird|Wild firebird]] ([[User talk:Wild firebird|talk]]) 01:26, 13 January 2008 (UTC) |
:Dear sir or ma'm, I assume you do not speak Armenian or Russian... I think it would be impossible for you to determine the notability of a post-Soviet composer if you don't speak the languages of cultures in which he is most relevant. Would you please reconsider your nomination for deletion, while others are providing more supporting material? I say this with all due respect. It just seems unfare to delete the entire article on a living composer based on standards of notability with are met now and are likely to be more convincing as time goes by. [[User:Wild firebird|Wild firebird]] ([[User talk:Wild firebird|talk]]) 01:26, 13 January 2008 (UTC) |
||
::With all due respect to you and the composer: I'd like to take your word regarding his [[WP:N|notability]], but we're basing this universal encyclopedia on already published independent sources. The problem of possible bias is acknowledged, so if you are aware of any sources, critical reception, reviews, documented awards, also in printed form, in Russian or Armenian, put them forward at the AfD. While deletion may seem unfair, the deletion discussion (which is at this point, where others have come to a similar assessment, a community process and not a personal matter) may rather show that the article has been created too early. Until the time is ripe and given your interests in classical music and Armenian topics, you may be interested in the project [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias|countering systemic bias]] that tries to address definite omissions.--[[User:Tikiwont|Tikiwont]] ([[User talk:Tikiwont#top|talk]]) 15:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC) |
::With all due respect to you and the composer: I'd like to take your word regarding his [[WP:N|notability]], but we're basing this universal encyclopedia on already published independent sources. The problem of possible bias is acknowledged, so if you are aware of any sources, critical reception, reviews, documented awards, also in printed form, in Russian or Armenian, put them forward at the AfD. While deletion may seem unfair, the deletion discussion (which is at this point, where others have come to a similar assessment, a community process and not a personal matter) may rather show that the article has been created too early. Until the time is ripe and given your interests in classical music and Armenian topics, you may be interested in the project [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias|countering systemic bias]] that tries to address definite omissions.--[[User:Tikiwont|Tikiwont]] ([[User talk:Tikiwont#top|talk]]) 15:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC) |
||
I provided more info backing the composer's notability at the deletion discussion. Pleae, have a look at it. I can't, with clear conscience, contribute to any Wikipedia projects when the article I have worked on the most is to be unfarely deleted. I am asking you to put an end to this discussion and remove the deletion notice as soon as you can. Let's leave that article alone. It will get better as time goes by and more sources are provided. Deleting it will only offend the composer and those who have been working on it.[[User:Wild firebird|Wild firebird]] ([[User talk:Wild firebird|talk]]) 01:38, 14 January 2008 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 01:38, 14 January 2008
 | Welcome to my talk page. Please adhere to the talk page guidelines and particularly the following:
|
Another editor has added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Soul On Beatles, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 04:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
A request for your consideration regarding CAT:AOTR
| Hello fellow Wikipedia administrators open to recall category member! |
|---|
|
I am leaving you this message because recent events have given me concern. When Aaron Brenneman and I, and others, first developed this category well over a year ago, we visualized it as a simple idea. A low hassle, low bureaucracy process. We also visualized it as a process that people would come to trust, in fact as a way of increasing trust in those admins who chose to subscribe to the notion of recall. The very informal approach to who is qualified to recall, what happens during it, and the process in general were all part of that approach. But recent events have suggested that this low structure approach may not be entirely effective. More than one of the recent recalls we have seen have been marred by controversy around what was going to happen, and when. Worse, they were marred by some folk having the perception, rightly or wrongly, that the admin being recalled was trying to change the rules, avoid the process, or in other ways somehow go back on their word. This is bad. It's bad for you the admin, bad for the trust in the process, and bad for the community as a whole. I think a way to address this issue is to increase the predictability of the process in advance. I have tried to do that for myself. In my User:Lar/Accountability page, I have given pretty concrete definitions of the criteria for recall, and of the choices I can make, and of the process for the petition, and of the process for other choices I might make (the modified RfC or the RfAr). I think it would be very helpful if other admins who have voluntarily made themselves subject to recall went to similar detail. It is not necessary to adopt the exact same conditions, steps, criteria, etc. It's just helpful to have SOME. Those are mine, fashion yours as you see fit, I would not be so presumptuous as to say mine are right for you. In fact I urge you not to just adopt mine, as I do change them from time to time without notice, but instead develop your own. You are very welcome to start with mine if you so wish, though. But do something. If you have not already, I urge you to make your process more concrete, now, while there is no pressure and you can think clearly about what you want. Do it now rather than later, during a recall when folk may not react well to perceived changes in process or commitment. Further, I suggest that after you document your process, that you give a reference to it for the benefit of other admins who may want to see what others have done. List it in this table as a resource for the benefit of all. If you use someone else's by reference rather than copy, I suggest you might want to do as Cacharoth did, and give a link to a specific version. Do you have to do these things? Not at all. These are suggestions from me, and me alone, and are entirely up to you to embrace or ignore. I just think that doing this now, thinking now, documenting now, will save you trouble later, if you should for whatever reason happen to be recalled. I apologise if this message seems impersonal, but with over 130 members in the category, leaving a personal message for each of you might not have been feasible, and I feel this is important enough to violate social norms a bit. I hope that's OK. Thanks for your time and consideration, and best wishes. Larry Pieniazek NOTE: You are receiving this message because you are listed in the Wikipedia administrators open to recall category. This is a voluntary category, and you should not be in it if you do not want to be. If you did not list yourself, you may want to review the change records to determine who added you, and ask them why they added you. |
...My guinea pigs and the "A"s through "S"s having felt this message was OK to go forward with (or at least not complained bitterly to me about it :) ), today it's the turn of the "T"s through "Z"s (and beyond, apparently)! I'm hoping that more of you chaps/chapettes will point to their own criteria instead of mine :)... it's flattering but a bit scary! :) Also, you may want to check back to the table periodically, someone later than you in the alphabet may have come up with a nifty new idea. ++Lar: t/c 20:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Question about previously discussed/deleted article Robert Blecker Wants Me Dead
Hello! A few months ago you were helping to clarify why an article I'd submitted was 'speedily deleted'. Since then, I have found numerous references to the film, though they do not specifically mention it by the final title the film was given. They do reference the filming of the movie and the director, Ted Schillinger. Would these 3 sources be sufficient enough to consider the topic "notable"? Here are the various links I have found:
1. http://www.worldscreen.com/archivenews4.php?filename=atlas052307.htm: "...Other films include Robert Blecker Wants Me Dead, which documents the friendship between impassioned pro-death penalty campaigner Robert Blecker and death row inmate Daryl Holton;...",
2. http://www.t-g.com/story/1252793.html: Robert Blecker, a professor of the New York School of Law and a death penalty advocate who's the subject of a documentary being written and directed by Ted Schillinger for Capital Filmworks Inc., visited with Holton on Sunday.
3. http://www.t-g.com/story/1255523.html Robert Blecker, a professor of law, is the subject of the documentary. While he's examined other cases, Holton's is most closely examined in the documentary. The program is to be 90-100 minutes long, Schillinger said. It's produced by Atlas Media Corp. The Manhattan, N.Y., based business has produced non-fiction for the History Channel, National Geographic's cable channel and most recently started a theatrical documentary division.
4. http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117964841.html?categoryid=13&cs=1 ...the second theatrical on Atlas' slate, "Robert Blecker Wants Me Dead," will be much more cost-effective. Blecker is one of the most passionate advocates of the death penalty, and the docu deals with his 18-month interaction with an unusual death-row inmate named Daryl Holton, who is not appealing his sentence. Klein said Atlas may end up distributing the Blecker docu inhouse, adding that it lends itself to plenty of Internet cross-promotion, such as a designated Web site with links to organizations that both support and oppose the death penalty.
Would these references be sufficient enough to reinstate our listing?? If so, how do I go about doing that? Thanks for all your help!! Kc1981 (talk) 21:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- Well, three of the sources just mention the film, mostly as part of a portfolio. In general documentaries tell something about their subjects and will only have a separate articles if there is indeed substantial coverage on the film it self. For a good example see today's featured article Trembling Before G-d. Since "Robert Blecker Wants Me Dead" hasn't been seen yet and Wikipedians are generally wary of "Internet cross-promotion", we're IMO not there yet. If and once things change you can either create a draft in your user space and bring it up at deletion review or - especially in in case of substantial reviews or even awards - directly create the article in wikispace and if that would be deleted as well, contest that deletion at Deletion review. Meanwhile, Robert Blecker as the subject of a full documentary might well warrant an article here.--Tikiwont (talk) 14:58, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Why delete a normal article?
I have reviewed the article and couldn't find any unsupported material. Please remove your deletion notice as soon as possible. Or let me know exactly what it is that needs attention. Specifically. Here is the article in question: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Manukyan 12.34.80.98 (talk) 08:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- Well I see that you've raised your point also at the deletion discussion that will determine whether or not we should have an article on Manukyan. I've nominated the article for deletion since there are rather general problems. Also according to my own search such there are not enough reliable sources or other indications of notability. --Tikiwont (talk) 13:05, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- Dear sir or ma'm, I assume you do not speak Armenian or Russian... I think it would be impossible for you to determine the notability of a post-Soviet composer if you don't speak the languages of cultures in which he is most relevant. Would you please reconsider your nomination for deletion, while others are providing more supporting material? I say this with all due respect. It just seems unfare to delete the entire article on a living composer based on standards of notability with are met now and are likely to be more convincing as time goes by. Wild firebird (talk) 01:26, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- With all due respect to you and the composer: I'd like to take your word regarding his notability, but we're basing this universal encyclopedia on already published independent sources. The problem of possible bias is acknowledged, so if you are aware of any sources, critical reception, reviews, documented awards, also in printed form, in Russian or Armenian, put them forward at the AfD. While deletion may seem unfair, the deletion discussion (which is at this point, where others have come to a similar assessment, a community process and not a personal matter) may rather show that the article has been created too early. Until the time is ripe and given your interests in classical music and Armenian topics, you may be interested in the project countering systemic bias that tries to address definite omissions.--Tikiwont (talk) 15:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I provided more info backing the composer's notability at the deletion discussion. Pleae, have a look at it. I can't, with clear conscience, contribute to any Wikipedia projects when the article I have worked on the most is to be unfarely deleted. I am asking you to put an end to this discussion and remove the deletion notice as soon as you can. Let's leave that article alone. It will get better as time goes by and more sources are provided. Deleting it will only offend the composer and those who have been working on it.Wild firebird (talk) 01:38, 14 January 2008 (UTC)