Revision as of 22:27, 10 April 2016 editCDRL102 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,396 edits sign← Previous edit | Revision as of 22:32, 10 April 2016 edit undoStarTrekker (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers175,141 edits OopsNext edit → | ||
Line 50: | Line 50: | ||
::::::Acting very possessive and behaving as if you own the article. You think you know better than everyone else. Other people are trying to improve the article and instead of letting them you want to have it your way, which in turn has made the piece less than what it should be. This is clearly a pet project of yours and no one is enjoying your attitude about it. I completely believe if you let others cooperate more with you on this the article would become much better instead of what it is now. I also doubt you are capable of looking at this completely objectively since you are so over-invested in it so I wouldn't trust your judgment about what should be included in the article and what not. Right now it's also pretty lacking in sources for its length, some of it should probably be cut.] (]) 22:25, 10 April 2016 (UTC) | ::::::Acting very possessive and behaving as if you own the article. You think you know better than everyone else. Other people are trying to improve the article and instead of letting them you want to have it your way, which in turn has made the piece less than what it should be. This is clearly a pet project of yours and no one is enjoying your attitude about it. I completely believe if you let others cooperate more with you on this the article would become much better instead of what it is now. I also doubt you are capable of looking at this completely objectively since you are so over-invested in it so I wouldn't trust your judgment about what should be included in the article and what not. Right now it's also pretty lacking in sources for its length, some of it should probably be cut.] (]) 22:25, 10 April 2016 (UTC) | ||
:::::::Sorry, but you've confused me with ]. I'm the one who tried to cut the stuff but was reverted. ] (]) 22:27, 10 April 2016 (UTC) | :::::::Sorry, but you've confused me with ]. I'm the one who tried to cut the stuff but was reverted. ] (]) 22:27, 10 April 2016 (UTC) | ||
::::::::Oops sorry. I was trying to respond to her before but you must have commented before me and I didn't keep track. I take to long writing my comments sometimes. Sorry.] (]) 22:31, 10 April 2016 (UTC) |
Revision as of 22:32, 10 April 2016
Clarawood
- Clarawood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non notable housing estate, Most sources don't even mention Clarawood and most are completely unrelated anyway, The creator has also admitted they're a resident of the estate which explains why most of the article is written as someones opinion, All in all IMHO the article should be blown up and started from scratch.
(An an aside I was asked by an editor on what I thought of the article and to be nice I originally suggested AFC but we both agree AFD is the better option, Thanks, –Davey2010 17:40, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- Clarawood123 also has alot of WP:OWNership issues with the article, As I said above IMHO the entire article should be deleted and rewritten by a neutral editor regardless of the sources (and perhaps notability). –Davey2010 22:24, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- I would say Keep, however User:Clarawood123 reverts everyone elses edits when they try to improve the article. There may also be a notability issue. I will still try to improve the article over this AfD period. CDRL102 (talk) 18:25, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- CDRL102 - Ah I assumed you wanted it deleted, In that case would you prefer If I instead moved it your sandbox or whatever? –Davey2010 18:41, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- For now we can do that then, if I can't improve it we can re-open AfD/request deletion? CDRL102 (talk) 18:43, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- Okie dokie I'll move it over, Cheers, –Davey2010 18:45, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- For now we can do that then, if I can't improve it we can re-open AfD/request deletion? CDRL102 (talk) 18:43, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- CDRL102 - Ah I assumed you wanted it deleted, In that case would you prefer If I instead moved it your sandbox or whatever? –Davey2010 18:41, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- I would say Keep, however User:Clarawood123 reverts everyone elses edits when they try to improve the article. There may also be a notability issue. I will still try to improve the article over this AfD period. CDRL102 (talk) 18:25, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Relisting comment: Discussion reopened and relisted per Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2016 March 30. Sandstein 07:08, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:08, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
The article Clarawood was created and written by me in February and had been active with some minor edits etc for some weeks. User:CDRL102, who as mentioned in other comments has a history of unwelcome and unnecessary edits to various pages, then made a huge sweeping cut in the article adding tags for referencing and notability etc. User:Davey2010 then, in direct response to an ask br CDRL, listed it for deletion. This was already after some discussion by myself on talk pages and after I added info to the page making them also aware that further info could be added. The AfD was closed after an hour with contributions from only these 2 and before I even knew it was listed or had an opportunity to participate, nevermind the fact it is supposed to sit open for a week anyway. It was userfied and the article was moved to CDRL's sandbox and the page Clarawood was then speedy deleted by another admin User:Malcolmxl5. I asked them to reinstate it and there was some discussion. I then listed a deletion review and as a result an admin has reinstated a Clarawood page and listed it again AfD. It should be noted by anyone paticipating in this that the AfD as listed here is simply the identical one from before with which I had major problems and have already had substantial discussions on with everyone involved. Anyone participating in this AfD, in my view, would be well served by ensuring they read the full breadth of those discussions on the Clarawood talk page, the original AfD and the deletion review, Davey2010's talk, CDRL102's talk and Malcolmxl5's page. Articles are open for editing whilst AfD. Now Clarawood is back as a page - whether temporarily or not - I am editing it back to the form it was in at 21.21 on 22nd March 2016. The article as it now stands, which was in the form edited by CDRL102, is factually incorrect which demonstrates their lack of knowledge and expertise in dealing with the subject. I will also add a note to the Clarawood talk page and I will be expanding the General Reference section over the next day or two which should satisfy any detractors that the article is not referenced or the subject non-notable. In short the article as I will amend and edit it now should be a Keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clarawood123 (talk • contribs) 23:17, 8 April 2016 (UTC) Sorry forgot to sign Clarawood123 (talk) 23:27, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep and allow development, and revisit in a year. Factors are:
- The article is the main work in Misplaced Pages so far by a new contributor, and deleting it outright is unnecessary and offensive
- There's no emergency: there are no wp:BLP issues and the article is factual and harming no one
- A neighborhood or housing development or planned commmunity of 600 homes is often/usually valid as a topic in Misplaced Pages.
- That said, the current version is not written in encyclopedic style. It already has too many unimportant details, perhaps added to make it seem like a valid article, in the eyes of newer editors. (This is natural, many/most new editors' first contributions are this way, c.f. hundreds of too-detailed articles about college dormitories such as Towers Hall, another article at AFD.)
- It's not worth turning this contributor away; it's not worth pages and pages of arguments either way
- To the new contributor: go ahead and develop it, but please try not to use so much detail. Different issues of the same annual publication are not really very independent sources. Sourcing is good to have, but detailed sourcing is not needed for factual matters unless they are contested, and no one is saying the development doesn't have the number of whatevers that the article says it has. Please ask other editors to review it and make suggestions. If you haven't already please go to your public library and get help with sources about the area. Many libraries keep clippings files. I encourage the new contributor to please take a look at other articles in Category:Neighborhoods, Category:Planned communities, Category:Housing developments and the like, find some that are good and emulate them (does anyone have specific good examples?)
- I encourage the new contributor to edit in other articles and participate in Misplaced Pages processes like wp:AFD about other articles for a while. It's easier to learn by working in areas that are not important to you.
- Don't anyone have a cow and let's just put this on the back burner to return to a year from now, when the article will be better and when small things won't matter as much. I am willing to put it into my calendar to return to this 365 days after this is closed, and others can calendarize it too.
- --doncram 18:21, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- Comment: I tried to edit a bit back in March, in order to make the article more Manual of Style-compliant, but got reverted. Looking at the page history, others seem to have experienced similar situations. While there is not much wrong with an article about a neighbourhood like Clarawood as a WP:GEOFEAT, I do advise the page creator to act less as if one WP:OWNs the article. Some have more knowledge about Clarawood, others are more experienced in creating the Misplaced Pages looks; working together is what results in good encyclopedic articles. - HyperGaruda (talk) 19:31, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- Comment: As I have also said above, I would like to Keep this article too and make it more Misplaced Pages acceptable, however User:Clarawood123 has taken a WP:OWNs feeling to the page meaning when I and other editors do change it, it gets reverted back. CDRL102 (talk) 19:51, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- Looking here, , we can see the article has been restored to the way User:Clarawood123 had it, without essentially any other input. CDRL102 (talk) 19:54, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
Comment As previously discussed in other places the suggestion that I have simply reverted every edit made to the Clarawood page by other editors is frankly untrue. I learnt from Hypergaruda and others about fair use photo protocols on Misplaced Pages and there were a number of other edits. I did revert a number of edits however and I gave my reasons for doing so using Misplaced Pages Guidelines as my reference - I did not just reject what people did or try to keep things "my way". One of the main reasons for reverting some things was that these edits, especially that done by User:CDRL102, were more about a matter of the editor's personal preference on how a page should look or sound rather than any actual benefit. Indeed CDRL102's edit removed very substantial portions of information and facts. The article had also been tagged as non-notable and unreferenced. Both these assertions were untrue as I have previously argued and demonstrated using Wiki Guidelines. However I have now expanded the General Reference section substantially to satisfy any concerns in this area. Regarding the so-called encyclopaedic style - various Wiki Guidelines are very clear that articles ought to be written in a style accessible to any reader and find a balance between info for the expert or for the casual peruser. They should also be written in plain neutral language and this is what I did on Clarawood. The United Nations, the European Union and many other groups view human settlements and habitations, including the local neighbourhood, through a filter of Sustainable Development typified by the three strands of environment, society and economy. Therefore I sought to write the article with this in mind. An encyclopaedia is defined as a collection of knowledge and generally they try to be comprehensive. Usually an article will be written by an expert on the particular subject and if it is a subject where there are likely to be updates then that person is expected to do this in a timely manner ie regularly. Articles are not usually changed or edited significantly without the orginal writer's participation or an open discussion first. In the case of Misplaced Pages it is a free online version and the community editing allows anyone to edit. However it is clear from various Wiki Guidelines and policies again that edits should be constructive. Simply because everyone is able to edit does not mean that everyone should be editing or that all edits are constructive, Assume Good Faith notwithstanding. It would be normal according to Guidelines for major stakeholders in an article eg the original writer to keep an eye on their creation. That is not ownership or acting like an owner however it is good stewardship and responsible editing. In cases where there is a difference of opinion on style or whatever it is also in the Guidelines that the style chosen by the original writer or editor should be adopted. I wrote the article to be a balanced summary of the breadth of information about Clarawood delivered in a concise but comprehensive way and understandable to anyone. Numerous things have been omitted but those included are all included for a reason. Many editors seem to think that Misplaced Pages articles must be written simply as an abolutely cut back version of whatever information they can find online about the subject. This is not correct according to the Guidelines and I think the Clarawood article, unlike CDRL102's opinion, is more than "Misplaced Pages acceptable". I thank the editor above for their comments but I must also observe that their advice to visit a library and look for info seems to be a mistake. The publications listed as references on the Clarawood page are held in one of the biggest libraries in the country, the Public Records Office of Northern Ireland which is part of the UK National Archives, and they are the detailed original source for many of the encyclopaedic facts on the page and the particular citations were added due to people saying the General Reference wasn't enough. Clarawood123 (talk) 10:39, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- I'm sorry but I have just looked through the revision history and you have clearly undone a lot of decent edit without giving a proper reason. Also you new comment certainly seem to show that you are very possessive over this work, which honestly I don't believe is very[REDACTED] appropriate. I don't understand what you mean when you talk about being a "stakeholder".*Treker (talk) 21:40, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- And they've literally just done it again. - unbelievable. CDRL102 (talk) 21:58, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
CDRL102 - I've reverted back to where Sandstein had moved it, If she keeps it up she's gonna end up blocked ... which would be a lovely thing actually... –Davey2010 22:04, 10 April 2016 (UTC)(Self reverted. –Davey2010 22:21, 10 April 2016 (UTC))- That link shows nothing of value to me. The article isn't the issue, your attitude towards it is. It shouldn't be deleted but something should be done about your behaviour. You keep claiming that you're not doing what you're doing but it is clearly disprovable. The article is not suited for[REDACTED] in this condition and I believe the other editor are trying to fix that.*Treker (talk) 22:09, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- My behaviour? What have I done? CDRL102 (talk) 22:16, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Acting very possessive and behaving as if you own the article. You think you know better than everyone else. Other people are trying to improve the article and instead of letting them you want to have it your way, which in turn has made the piece less than what it should be. This is clearly a pet project of yours and no one is enjoying your attitude about it. I completely believe if you let others cooperate more with you on this the article would become much better instead of what it is now. I also doubt you are capable of looking at this completely objectively since you are so over-invested in it so I wouldn't trust your judgment about what should be included in the article and what not. Right now it's also pretty lacking in sources for its length, some of it should probably be cut.*Treker (talk) 22:25, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry, but you've confused me with User:Clarawood123. I'm the one who tried to cut the stuff but was reverted. CDRL102 (talk) 22:27, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Oops sorry. I was trying to respond to her before but you must have commented before me and I didn't keep track. I take to long writing my comments sometimes. Sorry.*Treker (talk) 22:31, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry, but you've confused me with User:Clarawood123. I'm the one who tried to cut the stuff but was reverted. CDRL102 (talk) 22:27, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Acting very possessive and behaving as if you own the article. You think you know better than everyone else. Other people are trying to improve the article and instead of letting them you want to have it your way, which in turn has made the piece less than what it should be. This is clearly a pet project of yours and no one is enjoying your attitude about it. I completely believe if you let others cooperate more with you on this the article would become much better instead of what it is now. I also doubt you are capable of looking at this completely objectively since you are so over-invested in it so I wouldn't trust your judgment about what should be included in the article and what not. Right now it's also pretty lacking in sources for its length, some of it should probably be cut.*Treker (talk) 22:25, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- My behaviour? What have I done? CDRL102 (talk) 22:16, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- That link shows nothing of value to me. The article isn't the issue, your attitude towards it is. It shouldn't be deleted but something should be done about your behaviour. You keep claiming that you're not doing what you're doing but it is clearly disprovable. The article is not suited for[REDACTED] in this condition and I believe the other editor are trying to fix that.*Treker (talk) 22:09, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- And they've literally just done it again. - unbelievable. CDRL102 (talk) 21:58, 10 April 2016 (UTC)