User talk:24.6.67.7

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hi!

Thanks for your edit on Splitting of the moon. Please explain your comment in more details on the talk page first. Thanks --Aminz (talk) 11:33, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. I will make some changes soon. Please visit the article later and see if it looks better. Thanks --Aminz (talk) 11:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I realize that you have a legitimate concern. I am trying to summarize everything in the lead. I'd be thankful if you could come back sometime later and give me a further feedback. Thanks very much. BTW, welcome to wikipedia!! --Aminz (talk) 11:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I made some changes. I hope it looks better now :) --Aminz (talk) 12:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback!! Have nice times. --Aminz (talk) 06:09, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kurt Franz

I noticed that you wrote that Kurt Franz was not notable. There were artles on him in a host of other Wikipedias, and he was famous for his sadism. Huh? ''[[User:Kitia|Kitia]]'' 01:33, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Uh. Famous for sadism? The Nazis had thousands of sadistic killers. What makes him somehow different? If there was something, so-to-speak, instructional, about him, in the article, that would seem to be more in line with Wiki.

24.6.67.7 02:09, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

There were many sadistic Nazi killers, but this guy was even more sadistic than most. Like Hitler. ''[[User:Kitia|Kitia]]'' 13:32, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I read you, but I'm uncomfortable with the idea of describing someone as more evil than someone else — if what's implied, and I think it is — is that we can identify evil people by stereotyping them according to how horrifying they have been. It's not clear that someone who murders a single individual is less evil than one who kills dozens. Right? The single killer might be a completely incurable crazy, while the multiple killer might be someone with a weak will, who doesn't think clearly, and has been heavily influenced by peer pressure.

24.6.67.7 13:46, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, he wrote a book and is in 7 other wikipedias. ''[[User:Kitia|Kitia]]'' 21:06, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I retract the comment made in the tag. (The article I tagged only had one sentence in it. And no mention of a published work.) It is obvious from the Italian and German articles -- though I have difficulty reading them, that there is substance.

24.6.67.7 15:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Robert Ward (MP)

Wikipedia:Notability (people) states that "Politicians who have held international, national or statewide/provincewide office, and members and former members of a national, state or provincial legislature" are generally notable. All British MP's are considered notable. Please remove the tag from the article. Tryde 11:49, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I just read the guideline, thank you. I was not aware of that clause. I removed the tag.
But I wonder, frankly, to whom you think this information would be interesting. His important accomplishments (if any) aren't listed in the Wiki article. The article is a paraphrase of some almanac, Who's Who, or the like. A quick look in Google doesn't disclose much -- in fact it's somewhat difficult to find details about him. So honestly, why should he, and the millions of ultimately minor politicians like him, be in Wiki?
24.6.67.7 12:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello. I know that it's a very short article with only basic information. If I had the sources I would expand on his career in parliament, his political views, what bills he tried to bring forward, et cetera although I doubt this would be very hard to even find in the UK. He was after all an MP at the time when Britain was a global super power as well as the member of one of the wealthiest landowning families in the country. Hopefully someone can expand this article in the future. To me the answer to the question whether we should have an article on the person with only this information or no article at all is easy. Wikipedia:stub is after all an important policy on Wikipedia, and it seems like you're questioning this.
In my mind articles like these are also what Wikipedia is very much about. In addition to articles on major topics we have room for more specialized topics that aren't found in other encyclopedias.
I also don't understand you comment regarding how many hits this would get every year. I am very well aware that this article won't be one of the most-read articles on Wikipedia or the internet as a whole but surely we shouldn't base our notablity guidelines on how many hits an article is likely to get. By the way, why don't you create an account. Regards, Tryde 14:36, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, my thinking goes, if no one reads an article, what's the point? I've written lots of great articles (not for Wiki) which never got read. After awhile, I thought, what exactly was the point?
24.6.67.7 14:54, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion

I'm just leaving you a note to advise you to show caution when CSD-tagging articles such as Halim Benmabrouk and Robert Ward (MP) keeping close reference to [1] guidelines. If you believe an articles should not be on Wikipedia, but does not meet WP:CSD criteria, it would be better to use WP:PROD for uncontroversial deletions or WP:AFD for any deletion that may prove controversial. If you have any questions, feel free to leave a comment on my talk page. Cheers,--EJF 13:44, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, EJF. I'm hoping I've addressed some of your concerns on your talk page.
24.6.67.7 14:10, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Wikipedia policy is quite inclusionist and I have fell foul myself before, tagging an article for speedy deletion when I felt a person was not notable [2], after finding only one publication that stated her name. I'm inclined to believed that a warning should be placed on new pages before they are saved, that warns they are liable to be deleted it if does not assert notability at its creation. Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales even created an article recently that fell foul of the CSD criteria which whipped up a storm and found its way into the media [3]. Wikipedia has became split between 'inclusionists' and 'deletionists' and it can be quite difficult to get a consensus on what should be on Wikipedia. Anyway, good luck and keep editing! --EJF 15:03, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. Certainly blatant vandalism such as adding swear words, insults and deleting comments should be reverted immediately if possible, but when patrolling recent changes there is a plethora of such vandalism and is hard to control. Incidentally, if you decide to register Twinkle is a good tool to remove such vandalism. I certainly agree with you that blatant advertising is a serious problem, and believe that this sort of behaviour is akin to flyposting. I feel it is the worst type of vandalism in Wikipedia and should be dealt with severely. As you say, moving the pages to the user's own space could be a better solution, although already advertising is banned from user space: '* Advertising or promotion of a business or non-Wikipedia-related organization (such as purely commercial sites or referral links)'. Wikipedia does not take a hardline on this however, and because of misuse of policies such as ignore all rules this soft approach may continue. And as for virtually content-free articles, the argument will rumble on. EJF 23:44, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Regarding St. Alypius the Stylite and the page being deleted; Any error or failure in summing up the information of the saint is my fault and I apologise. No copyright or other infringement was intentionally made.Jc3schmi 02:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I guessed that might be the case. And I was hoping it wouldn't be too much of a burden to rework it.

24.6.67.7 15:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)