User talk:Black Kite: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
MiszaBot III (talk | contribs) m Archiving 2 thread(s) (older than 48h) to User talk:Black Kite/Archive 34. |
Born2cycle (talk | contribs) |
||
| (12 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 30: | Line 30: | ||
I remember you I remember you saying you were slowly gonna Adf Transformers articles. I don't think as many need an ADF although a significant number still need doing I think what are your thoughts. I also started a couple of discussions on improving the Transformers articles at [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Transformers]] if you are interested. [[User:Dwanyewest|Dwanyewest]] ([[User talk:Dwanyewest|talk]]) 17:27, 16 October 2010 (UTC) |
I remember you I remember you saying you were slowly gonna Adf Transformers articles. I don't think as many need an ADF although a significant number still need doing I think what are your thoughts. I also started a couple of discussions on improving the Transformers articles at [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Transformers]] if you are interested. [[User:Dwanyewest|Dwanyewest]] ([[User talk:Dwanyewest|talk]]) 17:27, 16 October 2010 (UTC) |
||
== [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of doping allegations against Lance Armstrong]] == |
|||
As I noted in my final comment that I got in after you closed (edit conflict), deleting this article is a disservice to our readers. There are at least two books written on this topic, including [[L. A. Confidentiel]]. The allegations about 7-time Tour de France winner Armstrong cheating to win is a real and very serious sports issue, and Wikipedia readers deserve to have an objective and well-balanced article about it. The article as it stands notes ten separate allegations, each well documented and presented in a fairly balanced description (and thus not a violation of WP:UNDUE). To remove any of it, much less all of it, would be a disservice to our readers. To include all of it in the main article is arguably too much for that article.<p>This material started in the main [[Lance Armstrong]] article, and was moved out into a spinout precisely due to its size. Just which of the 10 serious and well documented allegations do you believe should not be included in Wikipedia, and why should our readers not know about them? With all due respect, and as a closer of [[WP:RM]] discussions I feel your pain, but I find this decision to be outrageous, for our readers and the good of Wikipedia. Please reconsider.<p>If you cannot specify which of the ten serious and well-sourced allegations should be censored from Wikpedia, and why, and do not reverse this decision, I will be forced to file a deletion review of this apparently ill-considered decision. --[[User:Born2cycle|Born2cycle]] ([[User talk:Born2cycle|talk]]) 02:36, 20 October 2010 (UTC) |
|||
* It isn't a question of my beliefs (I have no interest in the subject itself) but of a reading of the discussion as it relates to our many policies on the issue. As I said, it is not necessarily a question of whether some of the material itself should be included in the main article; it probably should. The question is whether it should be in a stand-alone article and how it relates to [[WP:BLP]], [[WP:UNDUE]], [[WP:POVFORK]] etc. But I would suggest that given the BLP possibilities inherent here that a suitable venue for this would be [[WP:DRV]]. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (t)]] [[Special:Contributions/Black_Kite|(c)]] 02:43, 20 October 2010 (UTC) |
|||
**I didn't question your belief or your interest in the subject (wondering why you said that?). By saying that ''some'' of the material should be included in the main article, you're implying that not all of it should be. Again, please identify which of the 10 serious and well sourced and fairly described allegations of Lance Armstrong doping should be censored from our readers. If you are unable or unwilling, please explain how we are to make all of them available to our readers now that you just deleted the spinout where it was presented. Thanks. --[[User:Born2cycle|Born2cycle]] ([[User talk:Born2cycle|talk]]) 02:51, 20 October 2010 (UTC) |
|||
*** If the article is a spinout then the material should still be in the history of the main article. As I said in the close, if there is anything else that editors want to salvage then I will provide that through userfication or other means and we can sort out attribution at that point. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (t)]] [[Special:Contributions/Black_Kite|(c)]] 02:54, 20 October 2010 (UTC) |
|||
****The point you seem to keep missing is that it was a legitimate spinout because it was too much material for the main article. I can restore that section in the main article, but editors will rightfully revert me because it's too much for the article. It belongs in a spinout... the spinout you just deleted!<p>I'm sorry, but I have to question how carefully you read the discussion, because I carefully refuted each and every argument for deletion, including by providing ''specific quotes'' from each referenced policy indicating why the material should be included rather than deleted. I really don't want to take this to WP:DRV because that would involve the time, energy and effort of others, but if you're unwilling to give this another, longer, look, I suppose I have no choice. Please, reread all the comments, then tell me which specific policy-based argument for deletion was not soundly refuted.<p>The question about which of the 10 allegations our readers shouldn't be allowed to see stands (third time I asked). --[[User:Born2cycle|Born2cycle]] ([[User talk:Born2cycle|talk]]) 02:59, 20 October 2010 (UTC) |
|||
****You wrote, "''If'' the article is a spinout..." How could you question that when I took the time and energy to cite [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lance_Armstrong&action=historysubmit&diff=384654460&old the edit] in which this section was removed from the main article in the very first '''Keep''' comment in the discussion? How can you decide to delete the article without understanding the history of how it came to be, including verifying whether the article was created as legitimate spinout or not? I am more and more baffled by this decision.<p>Refuted arguments were not refuted. Spinout may have not been a spinout. What's going on? --[[User:Born2cycle|Born2cycle]] ([[User talk:Born2cycle|talk]]) 03:09, 20 October 2010 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 03:09, 20 October 2010
Undelete request
Super Hits (Miles Davis album) Per Eric 44's criteria here, this article should have been kept: it charted and it has a professional review. Please respond on my talk at your earliest convenience. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:22, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
- Hmm. The others which were kept all had massive sales - gold/platinum status; this one charted at 22 in a genre chart and had a review at AllMusic (which frankly covers everything). Is this enough for a restore? Black Kite (t) (c) 20:11, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
- Sales I don't have the sales figures available, nor do I know of a reliable way to find them... For what it's worth, jazz albums sell far fewer copies than pop, rock, or country. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:23, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
- Undeletion Please post on my talk whether you think I have made a compelling case for undeletion. If you say no, or if you do not respond promptly, I will request a formal deletion review. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:55, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- Good deal Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:39, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- Undeletion Please post on my talk whether you think I have made a compelling case for undeletion. If you say no, or if you do not respond promptly, I will request a formal deletion review. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:55, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- Sales I don't have the sales figures available, nor do I know of a reliable way to find them... For what it's worth, jazz albums sell far fewer copies than pop, rock, or country. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:23, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Transformers improvement questions to ask you
I remember you I remember you saying you were slowly gonna Adf Transformers articles. I don't think as many need an ADF although a significant number still need doing I think what are your thoughts. I also started a couple of discussions on improving the Transformers articles at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Transformers if you are interested. Dwanyewest (talk) 17:27, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
As I noted in my final comment that I got in after you closed (edit conflict), deleting this article is a disservice to our readers. There are at least two books written on this topic, including L. A. Confidentiel. The allegations about 7-time Tour de France winner Armstrong cheating to win is a real and very serious sports issue, and Wikipedia readers deserve to have an objective and well-balanced article about it. The article as it stands notes ten separate allegations, each well documented and presented in a fairly balanced description (and thus not a violation of WP:UNDUE). To remove any of it, much less all of it, would be a disservice to our readers. To include all of it in the main article is arguably too much for that article.This material started in the main Lance Armstrong article, and was moved out into a spinout precisely due to its size. Just which of the 10 serious and well documented allegations do you believe should not be included in Wikipedia, and why should our readers not know about them? With all due respect, and as a closer of WP:RM discussions I feel your pain, but I find this decision to be outrageous, for our readers and the good of Wikipedia. Please reconsider.
If you cannot specify which of the ten serious and well-sourced allegations should be censored from Wikpedia, and why, and do not reverse this decision, I will be forced to file a deletion review of this apparently ill-considered decision. --Born2cycle (talk) 02:36, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
- It isn't a question of my beliefs (I have no interest in the subject itself) but of a reading of the discussion as it relates to our many policies on the issue. As I said, it is not necessarily a question of whether some of the material itself should be included in the main article; it probably should. The question is whether it should be in a stand-alone article and how it relates to WP:BLP, WP:UNDUE, WP:POVFORK etc. But I would suggest that given the BLP possibilities inherent here that a suitable venue for this would be WP:DRV. Black Kite (t) (c) 02:43, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
- I didn't question your belief or your interest in the subject (wondering why you said that?). By saying that some of the material should be included in the main article, you're implying that not all of it should be. Again, please identify which of the 10 serious and well sourced and fairly described allegations of Lance Armstrong doping should be censored from our readers. If you are unable or unwilling, please explain how we are to make all of them available to our readers now that you just deleted the spinout where it was presented. Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 02:51, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
- If the article is a spinout then the material should still be in the history of the main article. As I said in the close, if there is anything else that editors want to salvage then I will provide that through userfication or other means and we can sort out attribution at that point. Black Kite (t) (c) 02:54, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
- The point you seem to keep missing is that it was a legitimate spinout because it was too much material for the main article. I can restore that section in the main article, but editors will rightfully revert me because it's too much for the article. It belongs in a spinout... the spinout you just deleted!
I'm sorry, but I have to question how carefully you read the discussion, because I carefully refuted each and every argument for deletion, including by providing specific quotes from each referenced policy indicating why the material should be included rather than deleted. I really don't want to take this to WP:DRV because that would involve the time, energy and effort of others, but if you're unwilling to give this another, longer, look, I suppose I have no choice. Please, reread all the comments, then tell me which specific policy-based argument for deletion was not soundly refuted.
The question about which of the 10 allegations our readers shouldn't be allowed to see stands (third time I asked). --Born2cycle (talk) 02:59, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
- You wrote, "If the article is a spinout..." How could you question that when I took the time and energy to cite the edit in which this section was removed from the main article in the very first Keep comment in the discussion? How can you decide to delete the article without understanding the history of how it came to be, including verifying whether the article was created as legitimate spinout or not? I am more and more baffled by this decision.
Refuted arguments were not refuted. Spinout may have not been a spinout. What's going on? --Born2cycle (talk) 03:09, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
- The point you seem to keep missing is that it was a legitimate spinout because it was too much material for the main article. I can restore that section in the main article, but editors will rightfully revert me because it's too much for the article. It belongs in a spinout... the spinout you just deleted!
- If the article is a spinout then the material should still be in the history of the main article. As I said in the close, if there is anything else that editors want to salvage then I will provide that through userfication or other means and we can sort out attribution at that point. Black Kite (t) (c) 02:54, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
- I didn't question your belief or your interest in the subject (wondering why you said that?). By saying that some of the material should be included in the main article, you're implying that not all of it should be. Again, please identify which of the 10 serious and well sourced and fairly described allegations of Lance Armstrong doping should be censored from our readers. If you are unable or unwilling, please explain how we are to make all of them available to our readers now that you just deleted the spinout where it was presented. Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 02:51, 20 October 2010 (UTC)