| Revision as of 12:29, 3 July 2010 editFrank (talk | contribs)Administrators19,999 edits →Senator Robert Byrd: more← Previous edit | Revision as of 23:09, 3 July 2010 edit undoMk5384 (talk | contribs)5,695 edits →Senator Robert ByrdNext edit → | ||
| Line 62: | Line 62: | ||
| :It also states, "if the article is receiving 100 or more edits per day, which it is not." ] (]) 07:33, 3 July 2010 (UTC) | :It also states, "if the article is receiving 100 or more edits per day, which it is not." ] (]) 07:33, 3 July 2010 (UTC) | ||
| ::Your edit has been removed three times by two editors, and you've been told by three editors that your interpretation doesn't fit with theirs. Please attempt to gain consensus for any further removal of the {{tl|recentdeath}} template from ]. It seems the consensus is currently against such removal. I think the key here is to understand that there's no specific ''rule'' about use of this template. The guideline is just that - a guideline. This is a pretty high-profile article; if you look through the recent deaths page you'll be hard pressed to find anyone nearly as high-profile as Byrd who has died recently. And, there are articles in 26 other wikis for him, which clearly speaks to the international nature of interest in his life. Another day or two with the template won't hurt anything, and seems totally appropriate for an article that is getting 20,000 hits per day - 1/3 more than ], the 87th-most popular article according to . <small><span style="padding:2px;border:1px solid #000000">] {{!}} ]</span></small> 12:29, 3 July 2010 (UTC) | ::Your edit has been removed three times by two editors, and you've been told by three editors that your interpretation doesn't fit with theirs. Please attempt to gain consensus for any further removal of the {{tl|recentdeath}} template from ]. It seems the consensus is currently against such removal. I think the key here is to understand that there's no specific ''rule'' about use of this template. The guideline is just that - a guideline. This is a pretty high-profile article; if you look through the recent deaths page you'll be hard pressed to find anyone nearly as high-profile as Byrd who has died recently. And, there are articles in 26 other wikis for him, which clearly speaks to the international nature of interest in his life. Another day or two with the template won't hurt anything, and seems totally appropriate for an article that is getting 20,000 hits per day - 1/3 more than ], the 87th-most popular article according to . <small><span style="padding:2px;border:1px solid #000000">] {{!}} ]</span></small> 12:29, 3 July 2010 (UTC) | ||
| :I'm sorry "my interpretation" doesn't fit with theirs. How exactly would you have me "interpret" 100 edits a day?] (]) 23:09, 3 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 23:09, 3 July 2010
|
 Archives |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Changes to Cancún article
Please see my comments on my talk page about the item you undid. I think that before removing easily verifiable information for lack of citation, it would be better to look it up and enter the citation. I also don't think that erroneous information should be inserted into the article. It's really easy for people to make technical changes; considerably more difficult to actually improve the article. I could go through it and enter citations for every point where required, as well as correct the errors that have crept into it. I gave up editing this article quite a while ago because I really don't like wasting my time defending it from what I very frankly consider a form of vandalism -- technically correct in terms of Misplaced Pages policy, perhaps, but detrimental to overall quality. I hope that you will take these remarks in the spirit of helpfulness with which they are offered. Jules Siegel (talk) 03:58, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
- If I may, Frank was right in removing the information. Facts shouldn't be added to an article without a source, especially statistics as specific as the ones you added. Adding information and a "citation needed" tag at the same time shouldn't happen, if you have the stats in a reliable source, please provide it. Otherwise, don't ask other editors to find your sources for you. It's best to leave out what can't be reliably sourced, especially when it's not crucial information. Dayewalker (talk) 04:05, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks, Dayewalker. I would add that summary of the edit I undid read (in part) The information is accurate, useful and can be easily verified by consulting the Internet. My response was Then let's get the citation(s) in the article. I thought that was pretty self-explanatory. However, your note above (Jules) indicates you have your own idea of how Misplaced Pages works (or should work). For example, you say you "could go through it and enter citations for every point where required, as well as correct the errors that have crept into it." Well, to that I say, "Thanks!". If you need help with that, let me know. However, when another editor removes information that appears to have been uncited in the article with a tag for 9 months, your edit adding it back in with the summary above is quite unhelpful to the article. I'm sorry if you feel like Misplaced Pages should work differently, but this is how it actually works and how policies exist. You bemoan that the article is "technically correct...perhaps" but again - the policies exist for a reason, and the "edit" tab - with which you are certainly familiar - also exists for a reason. Frank | talk 05:42, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Talkback
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Notice of Discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators noticeboard regarding the Talk:Barack Obama page. The thread is Talk:Barack Obama#Citizenship conspiracy theories.The discussion is about the topic of the recent Citizenship conspiracy theories discussion. Thank you.
P.S. You are mentioned once in relation to a prior incident, and as such I am required to notify you. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 06:10, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks. Frank | talk 12:11, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Excellent stalking
|
The WikiJaguar Award for Excellence | |
| For your recent assistance responding to a query on my talk page (answering it far better than I probably would have), I award you the WikiJaguar Award for Excellence in talk page stalking efforts. –xeno 12:55, 20 May 2010 (UTC) |
- Aww, shucks. Thanks :-) Frank | talk 13:55, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
List of The Sopranos characters
Thank you - for saving someone drowning. With my coding skills I should never leave the sandbox. Eudemis (talk) 22:43, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- No problem. I'd like to clean up List of The Sopranos characters...if only I had the time... Frank | talk 23:05, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Senator Robert Byrd
I removed the recent death template in compliance with guidelines. If you plan on adding it again, please explain your rationale. Thank you.Mk5384 (talk) 02:06, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
- He died 4 days ago and is still receiving plenty of edits. Frank | talk 02:13, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
- Page view statistics for June and July help tell the story. The guideline states "...subject to removal after 7 days...", which haven't elapsed. I understand the guideline also says that it should be used rarely and for international figures...Byrd qualifies, and we slap that tag on the pages of far less well-known people. Frank | talk 02:17, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
- While strict adherence to the guideline allows for its removal, there was no compelling indication for, and certainly no requirement of its removal. Given that Byrd fits the qualifications for having the template in the first place and it was not yet seven days since his passing, and given that the events surrounding his lying in state and funeral arrangements (much less higher editorial traffic at the article in general) were still unfolding, it seems not unreasonable to restore the template to remain in place throughout that period. It seems this is the sort of situation where the onus is on the person going against the judgement of those involved at the article to explain rationale for why they feel template removal must stand prior to a funeral, and not on those monitoring and/or working at the article to explain why they find it helpful and appropriate to remain. Abrazame (talk) 02:46, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
- Page view statistics for June and July help tell the story. The guideline states "...subject to removal after 7 days...", which haven't elapsed. I understand the guideline also says that it should be used rarely and for international figures...Byrd qualifies, and we slap that tag on the pages of far less well-known people. Frank | talk 02:17, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
- It also states, "if the article is receiving 100 or more edits per day, which it is not." Mk5384 (talk) 07:33, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
- Your edit has been removed three times by two editors, and you've been told by three editors that your interpretation doesn't fit with theirs. Please attempt to gain consensus for any further removal of the {{recentdeath}} template from Robert Byrd. It seems the consensus is currently against such removal. I think the key here is to understand that there's no specific rule about use of this template. The guideline is just that - a guideline. This is a pretty high-profile article; if you look through the recent deaths page you'll be hard pressed to find anyone nearly as high-profile as Byrd who has died recently. And, there are articles in 26 other wikis for him, which clearly speaks to the international nature of interest in his life. Another day or two with the template won't hurt anything, and seems totally appropriate for an article that is getting 20,000 hits per day - 1/3 more than Barack Obama, the 87th-most popular article according to its history stats. Frank | talk 12:29, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
- I'm sorry "my interpretation" doesn't fit with theirs. How exactly would you have me "interpret" 100 edits a day?Mk5384 (talk) 23:09, 3 July 2010 (UTC)